British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Bill

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 26th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

On behalf of the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), let me start by thanking all Members, from across the House, particularly those who served on the Bill Committee, who have engaged in debating the Bill’s merits on Second Reading, in Committee and today on Third Reading.

As many have said, this Bill is a huge credit to the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who has rightly championed people being able to have the right to recognition as he has set out. He has conducted himself in an exemplary manner, not only with my ministerial colleague, who speaks highly of him and has been grateful for the engagement he has had in recent weeks and months, but with Home Office officials. As others have noted, the right hon. Gentleman has been persistent, diligent and challenging where the answers have not always been forthcoming as quickly as he would have liked. He has managed to get the right answers and to get them written down, so it is a huge testament to him that the Bill has secured cross-party support.

On Second Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker noted the “good-natured and constructive debate” that had taken place. I am pleased that that has continued, although I am not surprised; in the Government’s view, this Bill is doing the right thing and will make a real difference to Irish nationals and to those who have made their homes here in the UK and want to take the next step to become British citizens.

As we sit here, I am reminded of the words of our late sovereign, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, when she spoke in 2011 on the occasion of her state visit to the Republic of Ireland:

“no one who looked to the future over the past centuries could have imagined the strength of the bonds that are now in place between the Governments and the people of our two nations”.

What the right hon. Gentleman is doing today is making that recognition a little clearer, fresher and more meaningful.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border also asked me again to reflect on the unique position that Irish nationals hold within the UK. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for straying when I reflect on not an arbitrary group of individuals, but my own family. Like many in the UK, I have family going back to what is now the Republic of Ireland but was then the island of Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. They were from Limerick, and my father exercised his rights and secured an Irish passport a number of years ago. That connection is something that many of us see not just in the living expression of our ancestry, but in the history of freedom that our citizens have secured together. We do not need to look down many of the memorials here in England before we start seeing names that are clearly from the island of Ireland and realise that our shared struggle for freedom is reflected, sadly, in the pain of loss of families across these islands.

Irish nationals already enjoy the right to work, study and vote, alongside having benefits such as access to our health service and social welfare. The common travel area arrangements for Irish nationals are now in statute under 3ZA of the Immigration Act 1971. That protects the ability of Irish nationals to enter and live in the UK without needing a grant of immigration, leave to enter or remain. That relationship is reciprocated by the Irish Government in regard to British citizens entering Ireland and this strengthens the relationship between our two countries. Indeed, the right to hold and to live both identities was also guaranteed in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and many people have exercised it. Indeed a member of my private office who luxuriates under the joint nationality exercises it to this day.

Irish nationals who are exercising their rights to live and work in the UK must currently undertake the naturalisation process to gain British citizenships. There are many requirements associated with naturalisation. There are many requirements associated with naturalisation, such as a period of residence—usually five years—which is replicated in the Bill. However, many immigration requirements for naturalisation are designed for those who require formal grants of leave. It is not right to fully apply those to Irish nationals seeking to obtain British citizenship. Equally, the need to demonstrate competence of language—usually English, although Welsh and Scots Gaelic are also options—and to pass the life in the United Kingdom test seems at odds with the position of Irish nationals in the United Kingdom. We are glad that they do not feature in this Bill.

This issue has been raised in the House previously by hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). Likewise, it has been discussed by Lord Hay of Ballyore, who sits in the other place—as an aside, a member of my private office has decided quite extraordinarily to go and run a marathon in Donegal this weekend, for which I can only wish him good luck. They have highlighted the strong feeling about the issue, in addition to the cost of naturalisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby would like to express his happiness with the Bill and the improvements it makes to our statute book.

Although the Government supported the underlying principles of the Bill, full Government support was dependent on the Bill being amended. Thanks to the right hon. Member for Belfast East and the constructive approach that has characterised the Bill, those amendments were readily included. Following the actions of Committee members who scrutinised and debated the Bill, the amendments have passed and the Government are able to offer their full, unbridled and unconditional support as it completes its way through the House and moves to the other place.

The Bill as introduced to the House allowed for only people born in Ireland after 31 December 1948, having been resident in Northern Ireland for five years, to register as British citizens. The right hon. Member and the whole House will know that before that date, citizens could not have been born in the Republic of Ireland as the Republic had not been declared, so they were automatically eligible for British citizenship.

The right hon. Member will forgive me for expressing that his modest initial proposal did not recognise the idea that he and I both share: the United Kingdom is whole and integral, and therefore citizenship laws that apply in Northern Ireland, as he has suggested, should apply to the rest of the United Kingdom, except when a particular treaty—the Good Friday agreement, for example—changes elements of that. I am glad that he has welcomed—as I knew he would—the expansion of the Bill to the whole United Kingdom.

Following the amendments made in Committee, the Bill’s provisions will apply to all eligible Irish nationals of all ages who live anywhere in the United Kingdom for five years. As noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby on Second Reading, the amendments made in Committee have done that, first, by making the route available to Irish nationals—regardless of how they became Irish—and not just those born in Ireland. Those covered by the provisions of the Bill as it was introduced will still be included, but the amended Bill is more expansive in approach. It will give all eligible Irish nationals a more straightforward pathway to becoming a British citizen.

Secondly, it does not have a requirement that an Irish national must have been born after a certain date. Under the amended Bill, people born on or before 31 December 1948 will have the same opportunity to make use of it as people born after that date. Thirdly, qualifying residents can be from any part of the United Kingdom, not just Northern Ireland. That ensures that all eligible Irish nationals resident anywhere in the United Kingdom will be able to make use of this important piece of legislation. That reflects the important point that becoming a British citizen is about a tie to the whole United Kingdom, not just one constituent part, even were we to expect its uptake to be proportionately more in Northern Ireland. I know that the right hon. Member for Belfast East agrees strongly with that.

The Bill will add a new registration route to the British Nationality Act 1981. It seeks to insert a new section 4AA to allow any Irish national who has completed the qualifying residential period in the United Kingdom to be registered as a British citizen if they apply and meet the requirements. The requirements are a period of five years’ lawful residence without excess absences, a specific assessment of the 12 months prior to the application, and being of good character. The Secretary of State would of course retain discretion over the residential requirements, allowing him or her to treat them as having been met even when they have not, where the exceptional circumstances of a particular case merit doing so.

In keeping with other applications for British citizenship, albeit not on the face of the Bill, Irish nationals would also be expected to enrol their biometrics and successful applicants aged 18 or over would be required to attend a citizenship ceremony. It would be remiss of me not to highlight that this Bill, alongside all other residential application routes for British citizenship, is subject to the relevant sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 on citizenship applications. I do not need to revisit the Government’s position in this area, as agreed by Parliament in passing that Act.

A question came up from my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) about reciprocal requests to the Irish Government. That is a matter for the Irish Government, but I have to say we have an extremely friendly relationship with the Irish Government; indeed, the elevation of the new Taoiseach in recent days was a matter for some celebration to many of us. He has been a friend for a number of years. I am sure he will serve the Irish people extremely well, and I hope that the friendship we have developed over the years may see an evolution in this area—but that is a matter for them, not for us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Corby would like to reiterate his acknowledgement that the right hon. Member for Belfast East is not in agreement with the Government over the aims of the Illegal Migration Act. However, it is necessary to ensure a consistent approach across the statute book, even if it is highly unlikely that an Irish national would ever fall foul of that Act’s provisions.

Furthermore, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby is cognisant of the discussion to be had around fees for this registration route and notes the questions and comments that were raised in Committee on that point. As Members of this House may be aware, the unit costs for border and migration services are reviewed annually, an exercise that is currently under way following the financial year end. The unit costs for the proposed route will form part of that annual review, to ensure consistency in that calculation; once that is completed, my hon. Friend will be able to engage further with the right hon. Member for Belfast East in that space.

I must make clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Corby also did, that this is intended not to be a profitable scheme for the Government, but merely a way of recognising that there is a cost, and it would be right that that cost fell on those exercising this right and not on every citizen. This Bill has enjoyed varied and cross-party discussion and debate on its journey through the House. That discussion facilitated the amendments passed in Committee, which will expand the number of Irish nationals in the United Kingdom who may make use of the provisions to obtain British citizenship.

From early in the life cycle of this Bill, it was and continues to be the Government’s belief that a dedicated route for Irish citizens will reduce the burden for such applicants and create a more straightforward process to becoming a British citizen for our closest neighbours. The establishment of a dedicated route could potentially also allow for a lower fee to be charged, although I have already highlighted that that must be considered in line with ongoing work surrounding the border and migration services fees.

The Government are unequivocal in our support for the underlying principles of the Bill, which was first introduced by the right hon. Member for Belfast East, and we are pleased to provide our full support for the Bill as amended in Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border and I would like once again to concur with and congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his success in the ballot and on helping the Government to find a way to correct the issue in our nationality system. I personally congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and wish his important Bill well as it moves through to the other place. It will make a welcome amendment to our current legislation—one that I hope will be exercised by those who have rightly and in a most welcome fashion made their home among us and are part of our lives today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With the leave of the House, I call Gavin Robinson.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 April, be approved.

I am grateful to the House for its consideration of this draft order, which will see the Terrorgram collective proscribed. The Government assess that the Terrorgram collective operates as an organisation, in accordance with the guidance on the meaning of that term found in section 121 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The Terrorgram collective is the sixth extreme right-wing group to be proscribed, along with 75 groups proscribed for extreme Islamist or other ideologies. This is based on the level of direction provided by its leadership for the preparation of propaganda campaigns and the co-ordination between the network to advance its neo-fascist, accelerationist ideology.

Article 2 of this order adds the Terrorgram collective to the list in schedule 2 to the 2000 Act as a new entry. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Government have concluded that the Terrorgram collective should be proscribed. While I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, I can provide the House with a summary of the group’s activities.

The Terrorgram collective is a transnational online network of neo-fascist terrorists who produce and disseminate violent propaganda, with the aim of radicalising readers and encouraging individuals to commit acts of terrorism. The message of hatred it preaches is one of extreme white supremacism. It calls not just for death and violence but for the collapse of western democracy itself, so that the collective might build a whites-only world in its place.

The Terrorgram collective has published three long-form, magazine-style publications, as well as a 24-minute documentary video. This propaganda is designed to incite violence towards perceived representatives of the establishment, ethnic minorities and other minority or religious communities. It not only celebrates the abhorrent cycle of violence and death that it means to inspire; it worships it, glorifying the collective’s genocidal peers as so-called “saints” and encouraging readers to commit similar acts. The Terrorgram collective specifically celebrated Anders Breivik, who killed eight people with a car bomb before shooting dead 69 people at a youth camp in Norway in 2011, as a so-called “saint.”

The Government have determined that the Terrorgram collective is an organisation concerned in terrorism. For example, in February 2023, a key contributor to the Terrorgram collective was arrested for allegedly plotting attacks against the Baltimore power grid. The Terrorgram collective is involved in preparing for terrorism through the dissemination of instructional material in its propaganda. It promotes and encourages terrorism through its publications, which contain violent narratives and material that glorifies previous extreme right-wing attackers and encourages those who consume the content to commit similar actions.

In October 2022, an extreme right-wing terrorist attacked a gay bar in Slovakia, resulting in the murder of two people. In his attack manifesto, the perpetrator credited Terrorgram’s publications. Since the attack, Terrorgram now glorifies him as an example to follow. The decision to proscribe Terrorgram demonstrates this Government’s commitment to defending the security of the LGBT community.

Terrorgram holds vile antisemitic views. It has published propaganda material aimed at inciting violence against Jewish communities and the state of Israel and, most recently, celebrated Hamas’s attacks on Israel, including endorsing the use of terrorism to target Israel and Jewish communities. Reporting indicates that Terrorgram has advocated for attacks on Israel’s critical national infrastructure. This proscription further demonstrates our unwavering commitment to fighting antisemitism and our unfaltering support for the Jewish community.

The safety and security of the public is paramount. It is, and always will be, this Government’s No. 1 priority. The ongoing fight to counter and contain terrorism in all its guises is an essential part of that mission, as is standing up for the values we cherish. When our collective security and values are threatened by groups such as the Terrorgram collective, we will not hesitate to act. I therefore urge Members to support this proscription.

I commend the draft order to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I welcome all the comments made, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). He has been a friend for many years and we have worked together on many different operations in many different parts of the world—although very few were quite as vile as this one, I am afraid; Terrorgram is a genuinely horrific organisation. He raised some interesting points about the protection of the Jewish community, and he is absolutely right. The Community Safety Trust, which he and I both support, will receive an additional £54 million in funding to continue to provide measures until 2028. As he knows, that commitment was made only a few weeks ago by the Prime Minister.

My hon. Friend also quite rightly raised the incidents of anti-Muslim hatred that Tell MAMA has recorded. He is completely correct that we have sadly seen an increase in that area as well as in antisemitism, and he will know that we have also been very clear that those organisations, mosques and schools that require extra support and protection can get it from the Home Office—indeed, many have been applying, and I have had the privilege of ensuring that they are able to get the funding they need for their own security, to prevent harm to anybody in the Muslim community as well.

I want to touch briefly on some of the areas raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who made some interesting points about an individual. If she will forgive me, I will not speak about that individual in particular, but I will say that proscription works against organisations and is not an individual power. However, she is also aware that sanctions do work against individuals and, where we are aware that individuals are connected to such hateful organisations—certainly if they are connected to proscribed organisations, as I am confident Terrorgram will be very shortly after this debate—there is no way that somebody like that would be, in the legal term, conducive to the public good, and there is no way that they should be allowed access to the United Kingdom.

The hon. Lady also raised an interesting point about St George’s day. I must say that I have been to many St George’s day lunches, at the very generous invitation of individuals who, when I was still in uniform, used to be very kind. I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central remembers them too. We used to get invited to lunches in various parts of the country—my latest was in West Malling—and I may say that while we sat down for lunch at midday, I do not remember when we stood up from lunch. That was a great day of celebration and a fantastic moment for all of us. What we saw yesterday was no celebration of St George’s day or English national patriotism; it was simply thuggish violence and it has no place on our streets.

On tech, the hon. Lady is absolutely right that, sadly, it is very easy to go down a rabbit hole or a tech black hole that leads to an amazing warren of hate-filled conspiracy theories. This is an area where tech companies themselves have a responsibility to play their part. I have engaged with them in many different areas, including child sexual abuse online, which she knows I have devoted a lot of time to combating. However, this is another area where she is quite right that there is more work to be done and more responsibility on those who are profiting from the attention of individuals across the world.

The last point I want to make is on the definition of extremism. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central knows very well that this is an important piece of work. There is more work to be done on the actual list, as he rightly says, but I will bring it forward as soon as we ready to do so. He will understand that we want to make sure it is as robust and complete as it possibly can be, but he will be among the first to know as soon as it is ready.

I have seen some truly harrowing material in this job, but the scenes from the attack on the gay bar in Slovakia, where innocent people were gunned down in cold blood, ranks among the absolute worst. The manifesto written by the perpetrator advocated the murder of gay people, Jewish people and black people—not for anything they have done, but for who they are. Make no mistake: this was not just an attack on the LGBT community, and the Terrorgram collective is not just a threat to our national security. This was an attack on the values and principles that define who we are, and who we are as a nation. The Terrorgram collective is a threat to our society. There is no place whatsoever for the vile ideology espoused by the Terrorgram collective. We will not tolerate it. Proscribing it is a proportionate and necessary step in our ongoing effort to tackle terrorism, protect the public and defend our values. We will never relent in showing terrorism for what it is: a poisonous, corrosive force—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Minister, you can finish now.

[Tom Tugendhat]

And with that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the order to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I was rather hopeful that you would just get in under the wire, but thank you none the less.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft National Crime Agency (Directed Tasking) Order 2023

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2024 General Committees

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft National Crime Agency (Directed Tasking) Order 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I will start with the context in which we are introducing the order. Hon. Members will no doubt know that the impact of serious and organised crime on the United Kingdom is significant and growing. Put simply, it poses a threat to our national security and prosperity.

In partnership with law enforcement and industry, the Government have taken concerted action to tackle economic crime, fraud, bribery and corruption, all of which severely harm the economy and cause significant suffering. If we are to keep pace with those threats properly and effectively, only a system-wide response will do.

To that end, the Government announced, as part of the 2023 serious and organised crime strategy, their intention to amend section 5(5) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 to allow the director general of the National Crime Agency to direct the director of the Serious Fraud Office on matters relating to the investigation of suspected incidents of serious or complex fraud, bribery and corruption. This change will support strong, ongoing collaboration between the NCA and the SFO by enabling the director general of the NCA to direct the director of the SFO when the NCA requires the assistance, skills and expertise of the SFO, and satisfactory arrangements cannot be made under the existing voluntary tasking of the arrangement.

[Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I would be honoured.

[Edward Timpson]

It may be that my right hon. Friend will come on to this point, so I apologise in advance if he was going to, but I am just interested to know about the process for the NCA, given the workload that already exists for the SFO, its budget, its capacity, and also the prospects of a potential successful prosecution, when deciding whether to make a direction, so as not to overload the SFO and perhaps end up with less success as a consequence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. and learned Friend raises some good points. I will come on to them in a moment, if I may, and I will just continue for now.

With the addition of the director of the Serious Fraud Office to the list of agencies that can be subject to directed tasking, the measure will strengthen the National Crime Agency’s ability to co-ordinate a national effort against serious and organised crime. It will also place the NCA’s relationship with the SFO on the same footing as its relationship with police forces in England and Wales and the British Transport police.

This change does not impact the existing working practices and arrangements in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The National Crime Agency ensures that its activity within both jurisdictions takes full account of their specific and differing legislative, operational and political requirements while respecting the primacy of the respective police forces and prosecution authorities.

The Government’s aim, as set out in the recently published serious and organised crime strategy, is to reduce serious and organised crime in the UK. We will do that by disrupting and dismantling organised crime groups operating in and against the United Kingdom.

There is no doubt that the social and economic cost of serious and organised crime to the UK is eye-watering, running to at least £47 billion a year, but, extraordinary as that figure is, it does not begin to tell the whole story—a story of lives disrupted and of unimaginable suffering caused by heinous criminality such as sexual exploitation, drug abuse and human trafficking. Beyond the enormous financial and human costs, serious and organised crime threatens the legitimacy of the state. It damages our national security and prosperity. Our mission is to reduce the impact of serious and organised crime, including fraud.

The threat from fraud has increased in volume over recent years. The Government are implementing the fraud strategy, which includes launching a national fraud squad, blocking frauds at source and empowering the public to respond. That includes committing £100 million, as part of a wider £400 million package, to tackle economic crime and improve the law enforcement response to fraud. We have also set ourselves the target of reducing fraud by 10% from 2019 levels by the end of this Parliament. To help to achieve that target, in March the Home Secretary hosted the inaugural Global Fraud Summit to galvanise the international response and strengthen collaboration.

The National Crime Agency has been crucial to our response. It leads and co-ordinates the United Kingdom law enforcement response to serious and organised crime. We have strengthened the agency’s ability to combat organised criminals, increasing its budget by 44% to more than £870 million since the start of this Parliament—[Interruption.] That includes support to Canterbury. The Serious Fraud Office is also a critical partner in the fraud system; it has recovered more than £160 million in proceeds of crime, put 16 executives behind bars and forced big business to pay more than £1 billion in fines in the last five years alone.

The order forms part of the Government’s ongoing fight against economic crime, which causes significant harm to the United Kingdom. Subject to proper safeguards, it brings the investigative capability of the Serious Fraud Office’s work within scope for direction by the director general of the National Crime Agency, akin to the arrangement that already exists in relation to police forces in England and Wales. In practice, that means that, where it is assessed that improving the intelligence picture and/or the operational delivery is required as a priority to tackle a threat, decisions on voluntary and directed taskings are taken following discussion with the national strategic tasking and co-ordination group. To answer the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury, that will effectively be taken forward as a joint effort between the DG NCA, as he is called, and the director of the SFO.

The order provides a welcome additional power that will assist in sharing tools and expertise to fight serious and complex fraud, bribery and corruption. The relationship between the National Crime Agency and Serious Fraud Office is already extremely good, and the existing voluntary tasking arrangements are working. The order provides the mechanism for directed tasking, should it be needed, and I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I welcome the hon. Member’s contribution to this debate and his good grace and approach. He raised some appropriate and some slightly more challenging questions than I wanted on the £47 billion. As a loyal listener to “More or Less”, as I am sure he is, I may have to look for further guidance on this. That is the inflation-adjusted figure from £37 billion. If he will forgive me, he is not quite right to say that adding the fraud stats into that will make a different figure. It may or it may not. Of course, fraud has replaced a lot of other crime types that would have been counted in earlier figures. I assure him that I will not make him wait until 2025. I will chase the figures and come up with a better answer for him as soon as possible. I will write to him on that.

The hon. Member’s point about thresholds is a good one. That will be looked at by the director general of the NCA in consultation with the director of the SFO. Clearly, the resources can be spent in many different areas all the time. We are always looking to prioritise the most important and most high-impact investigations—not necessarily the ones with the greater financial burden, but those that have the most pernicious effect on people’s lives, directly or indirectly. Resourcing is always a challenge, so the threshold will depend on the different circumstances. There is not a blunt answer. It is a more complex approach that the director general of the NCA and the director of the SFO have to look at.

On who will pay, the costs will be discussed between the SFO and the NCA and, if need be, between the Home Secretary and the Attorney General. The Attorney General has been extremely supportive and active in making sure the SFO has the resources for investigations. I am sure that approach will continue and be followed by whoever may replace her. She has been a fantastic champion of the SFO.

I hope the Committee will support this fantastic order. It will make a difference to the NCA’s ability to direct and co-ordinate criminal investigations, and it will ensure that we have security and the protection that the British people expect against fraud. It is part of a larger effort and a wider package. It is a strengthening measure, which I commend to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) Order 2024

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 General Committees

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) Order 2024.

As always, it is a very great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. The order before us today amends the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 and adds “zombie-style knives” and “zombie-style machetes” to the list of prohibited offensive weapons. I will briefly set out the context. The Government have already taken robust action to address the menace of knife crime. Zombie knives were banned in England and Wales in 2016, followed by cyclone knives in 2019. Our legislation is stronger thanks to the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 and the Online Safety Act 2023, with further new measures contained in the Criminal Justice Bill currently going through Parliament. We have taken lots of measures in the non-legislative space too, not least the bolstering of our police forces with the recruitment of 20,000 officers. The numbers in London have not quite matched that target, but I hope the new Mayor, Susan Hall, will achieve it.

Nevertheless, as the public would expect, we keep our approach under review and will not hesitate when there is a clear and compelling case for further action. That brings me to the details of the order before us today. This legislation responds to concerns expressed by the police about the availability of certain types of machetes and large outdoor knives that do not seem to have a practical use and instead appear to be designed to look menacing. While zombie-style knives and machetes are fortunately used in a relatively low number of crimes, the police tell us that they are favoured by those who want to get hold of weapons for violent crime and to glamorise violence. Their appearance also creates fear in communities affected by knife crime. These weapons, which are advertised as collection items or as tools, can be purchased for as little as £10.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

In 2023, I joined the campaign run by the Express & Star to ensure that these types of knives were banned. Surely, just these weapons being on sale, regardless of their described purpose, speaks volumes to the fact that we should not allow them to be available to anybody?

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend makes it absolutely clear why his campaign is right and has been taken up by the Government. He has made the case so forcefully not just on behalf of his own constituents, but on behalf of the whole country. I am delighted to be here speaking on behalf of the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who would be championing this, but sadly has been otherwise detained.

Unlike more conventional knives and machetes, these weapons have no legitimate purpose. In our conversations with manufacturers and retailers, they have been clear that in their view, these articles are not designed as tools, but as weapons. Under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it is an offence to possess, import, manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale or hire, expose or possess for the purposes of sale or hire, a weapon specified in an order made under that section. A number of descriptions of weapons have been specified under section 141 and are therefore prohibited, including butterfly knives, knuckledusters, telescopic truncheons and certain types of swords with curved blades, commonly known as samurai swords.

Using the order-making powers in section 141(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Government wish to add “zombie-style knives” and “zombie-style machetes” to the list of offensive weapons to which section 141 applies. These weapons are defined as being a bladed article with a plain cutting edge, a sharp pointed end and a blade of over eight inches in length. The length was chosen in order to exclude knives designed for legitimate purposes such as many kitchen and outdoors knives. In order to be within the scope of the ban, the article should also have one or more of the features specified in new paragraph 1A, namely: a serrated cutting edge, more than one hole in the blade, spikes, or more than two sharp points in the blade.

Although it is right that we take the firmest possible action to prevent violence and stop dangerous weapons getting into the wrong hands, we are not seeking to criminalise law-abiding citizens. We are confident that the description of

“zombie-style knife or zombie-style machete”

does not include tools traditionally used in agriculture, farming, gardening or outdoor activities, nor indeed does it include my infantry sword.

We have included in the legislation defences to cover a range of circumstances, including where the article in question is of historical importance; made by hand; possessed, sold or imported for religious purposes; or was given as a gift by a Sikh to another person at a religious ceremony or other ceremonial event. Antiques are already exempt from section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. We are also providing a defence for blunt items to protect the legitimate fantasy knives market, and we have taken the opportunity to extend this defence to curved swords.

There are a couple of further points to mention before I finish. First, parts 3 and 4 of the instrument provide for a surrender and compensation scheme through which owners of weapons in scope of the ban will be able to surrender them. Secondly, regarding territorial scope, the statutory instrument will apply only to England and Wales. We very much hope that the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland and Scotland will take similar action to ensure that these dangerous knives are prohibited across the United Kingdom. To this effect, officials have engaged the Governments in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

If these dangerous knives remain available, there is a risk that they will be used in violent crime or to intimidate or cause fear. That is not a risk this Government are prepared to tolerate, nor is it one that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North would accept. As we have shown again and again, we will always act to protect our communities and keep the public safe. That is why we are introducing this order, which I commend to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham North for his speech and for the tone with which he has approached the debate. He has been a good friend for many years and has championed many aspects of this work. It has been very much a cross-party effort, and I am grateful for his approach.

I am also grateful that the hon. Gentleman highlighted the pain that, sadly, families face in so many areas. I am sure he welcomes, as I do, the fall in violent crime in the United Kingdom over the past year: it is down 14%, which is a huge achievement not just for the Home Office, but for police forces across our country. That fall in England and Wales is a tremendous achievement that we should welcome.

The hon. Gentleman asked a fair question about ninja swords. While concerns have been raised, and while those types of swords have been used in crime, we have looked carefully at whether to extend the ban to a wider range of swords. Ninja swords that have the features set out in legislation will of course be banned, but those that do not have such features will not be. We have focused our action to date on the types of weapon that the National Police Chiefs’ Council has raised as being of particular concern, namely zombie-style weapons. However, we will keep the legislation under review and will be looking at what more we can do in the area if the police tell us that they have evidence that such swords are increasingly being used in crime.

We need to strike the right balance. Large sections of the public own modern swords as collectable items, and many of my former comrades own their regimental swords and keep them at home. They are not bladed weapons in the usual sense, but blunt ceremonial items. They are prized by members of the family, and many of them have been in the family for generations. We need to ensure that we craft the law in the right way to prevent harm and remove the danger that too many families have sadly faced, but that at the same time we respect people’s right to keep ceremonial or public items that are not of concern to the police. That is an important balance to strike, and we are listening very carefully to the police.

The hon. Gentleman is right that the compensation is £10 per item. A person claiming that the value of their item is higher will have to provide evidence, and the Home Office will assess their claim. That is why there may be a slight discrepancy. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman if he would like me to go through the details.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

3. What recent assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the level of the security threat from China.

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

I thank my hon. Friend enormously for raising this question. Let me be clear that the hostile activity we have seen from Chinese authorities and state-affiliated groups poses a serious threat to the security and wellbeing of the British people and to our partners and allies across the world. The Deputy Prime Minister came to this Chamber last month to speak about the pattern of malign activity, including the targeting of our parliamentarians and two malicious cyber-campaigns by Chinese state-affiliated actors. We must never be afraid to stand up for ourselves and to call out this kind of activity that has targeted both my hon. Friend and me.

[Tim Loughton]

Mr Speaker, may I add my personal condolences to you on the loss of your father?

I say to my right hon. Friend that we had the scandal of the hacking of MPs’ email accounts back in March and we subsequently learnt that the FBI informed our Government—as well as foreign Governments who had legislators who were affected—about these incidents two years ago. Why has it taken two years for us to be told about a serious security breach? Will he now, with his colleagues in Cabinet, make sure that China is absolutely treated and labelled as a threat, not just an “epoque-defining systemic challenge”, and everything is done urgently to put China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend, who has given this House and our country exceptional service over many years, and who will sadly be standing down at the next election, has again made some strong points. On the first, he knows the language that I use and he has heard the words I have said. The reality is that we face threats from around the world, and many of them sadly are emerging out of Beijing today. We know it, we have seen it, and many of us in this House feel it. It is not something we are shying away from. The reality, however, is that there are many different ways of answering it. He has raised an important aspect on FIRS, which of course is being looked at, but he will have heard the words of the Deputy Prime Minister in this Chamber only a few weeks ago and how clearly he made himself heard.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am sorry, but I am not convinced by the Government’s attitude on this. When the Deputy Prime Minister came to see us a few weeks ago, he did not say anything new; he announced things about events that happened two years ago. The Security Minister himself knows of attempts by the Chinese Government to undermine the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee of this House. Why are we only ever told about things that happened years ago? If we are to take these issues seriously, we surely have to have an up-to-date and present account of the activities of the Chinese state.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Member will well know that, when there is a reason to act quickly and draw something to the attention of the House, we do, as was the case with Christine Lee, which he will remember involved the payment of money to a certain Member of this House. The reason we took that action was because we needed to expose it fast.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner said last year that our policing and security services were technologically vulnerable because of their use of Chinese-made equipment, including CCTV, drones and body cameras. Can the Minister say whether the digital asbestos of Chinese-made technology is still used in our policing and security infrastructure—yes or no?

[Tom Tugendhat]

My friend the hon. Member will know well that the work of Fraser Sampson before he retired or ended his mandate last year has been fantastically important to many of us in making sure “digital asbestos” —I approve of the term—is got out of our institutions. This is something that is ongoing. It has got out of the most secure sites already, but there are other areas where there is work to do, because an awful lot of sites bought technology that would now be problematic. It is not just static sites; there is potential that some electric vehicles could be easily turned into mobile intelligence-gathering platforms by hostile states, so it is about looking not simply at the past, but at the future.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

4. What recent progress his Department has made on returning illegal migrants to their home country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)]

T7. This Government champion fantastic animal welfare standards. My constituents would like to see alternatives to animal testing wherever possible, and would be keen to hear a vital update from the Department.

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

Given that interest is about to switch in this House to a different matter, I will be brief. I promise to write to my hon. Friend on this, but she should know that this Government have already doubled spending on finding alternatives to animal testing. We will continue to make sure that the inspection regime is as strict as possible, to make sure that when animals need to be used, the conditions are as humane as possible.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

T5. Will the Home Secretary tell us what level of auditing there will be of the hundreds of millions of pounds being sent to Rwanda? In particular, will he guarantee that no UK taxpayers’ cash will, either directly or indirectly, be used to fund the M23 militia in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 requires the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of their TPIM powers under the Act during that period.

The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.

Investigatory Powers (Amendment)Bill [Lords]

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 25th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I know that the hon. Member takes these matters incredibly seriously, and he has raised an important point. To be absolutely fair to the Minister and to his Department, I know that this is a matter that the Government have considered very carefully, and that there has been an extensive process of consultation with a range of tech companies—I have met a number of them myself—but I think it only fair to conclude that while of course there are important contributions to be made by tech companies to this debate, these are ultimately matters for the Government and the House to determine. Having said that, new clause 2 would provide a helpful and constructive mechanism for the Government, and we have tabled it in a genuine attempt to be helpful and to monitor very closely the significant challenges that our national security faces from serious and organised crime as a consequence of rapid developments in technology.

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he has addressed this issue, and he deserves a proper response. There is a valid concern that this is a process of engagement with tech companies, and there needs to be a partnership. I will be frank with him: I do not support new clause 2, for the very simple reason that the way in which this interaction takes place has evolved a lot, even in the two years that I have been in post. I suspect that during the four or five years that this House will supervise the Bill, under the next Government and in the five years beyond that, the interaction will evolve again.

What concerns me is that we could write into law a system of oversight and regulation that does not properly address the way in which tech companies are involved in this area. Therefore, the best answer is to have a more iterative process, which I have no doubt the fantastic civil servants with whom I have the privilege to work will adapt. Whoever takes over from me in 20 or 30 years’ time will no doubt want to iterate that as well.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the Minister for clarification on the response to new clause 2. He understands that we have tabled it because we genuinely think that it is a mechanism that—let us be honest about it—would not be particularly onerous for the Government, and would be helpful in focusing minds across Government. I completely agree with the point he made about his civil servants, who have been excellent throughout the passage of the Bill. We just happen to differ on this issue, because the Opposition think that the new clause would provide a useful forum for the Government to consider the challenges. He is absolutely right about the rapid evolution of technology, and we think it would be no bad thing to condense Government thinking into a report that would be issued on an annual basis.

[Dan Jarvis]

That is a very important point, and I completely agree. These are complex and difficult matters of public policy, and I completely understand that none of this is easy from the Minister’s perspective. However, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying so, his point strengthens the case for new clause 2, because we think it would provide a useful mechanism for the Government to track the development of these important matters, but also provide a mechanism for Members of this House to hold the Government to account on them. I am very grateful for the points he has made.

Before turning to amendment 24 on BPDs, which stands in my name, I would be very grateful if the Minister could say whether any progress has been made on arrangements to notify the Investigatory Powers Commissioner when adding new BPDs to existing category authorisations. It might not be in the Bill, but we think that even a reference to it in the IPC’s annual inspection would be helpful progress on this matter. The Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and I have discussed that, and I would be grateful if the Minister could said something about it.

I acknowledge the amendments on BPDs that were tabled by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). Both of our parties have concerns about the definition of “low or no expectation of privacy” for BPDs, which we debated in a pretty constructive fashion on Second Reading and in Committee. However, Labour does not oppose the concept of “low or no expectation of privacy” for BPDs, which is why we will not support amendment 7, which was tabled by the SNP spokesman. Instead, amendment 24, which stands in my name, seeks further clarification on how “low or no expectation of privacy” will be applied to BPDs, with the aim that the parameters must be as clear as possible for the House to understand.

In Committee, the Minister used the Panama papers as an example of leaked and widely republished material being defined as a BPD with a low or no expectation of privacy. I understand why the Minister chose to use that example, but most other leaked documents containing personal information do not attract anywhere near the same level of media attention. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to provide another example of information from a leak without widescale press coverage that would be suitable for the designation of a bulk personal data set with a low or no expectation of privacy.

[Tom Tugendhat]

As always, the hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight the areas I touched on. The important thing about the Panama papers was that they changed. They would have enjoyed a high level of privacy, but with republication they became “low/no”. It would not be right to say that any leaked document enjoys “low/no”, but the law should reflect the reality of the data that is currently being held. When data goes from being secret to being effectively public, it would be absurd to hold the intelligence services to a different standard from that which would apply to any of us, who would be able to access it on a website.

[Dan Jarvis]

That is a very useful clarification, and I thank the Minister for it.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 21 and 23 get to one of those points that irritates me. It is like a war of attrition with this Government—they cannot be seen to back down on anything or allow anyone else any victory, no matter how small. The code of practice says that once the designated Secretary of State has authorised something, the Prime Minister “should” be informed of any decision made under the alternative approval process as soon as reasonably practicable. It does not say “will” be.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I very much hope the right hon. Gentleman has brought Lord West’s smelling salts with him, because I would like to clarify the concession that Lord West got in the Lords here in the Commons. I can happily commit to strengthening the language on notification requirements in the code of practice, when it is formally brought forward in due course, to require that the Prime Minister “will” be notified of any decisions under the alternative process, rather than “should” be.

[Mr Jones]

I welcome that, but can I hear it again and pin the Minister down a little more? I am sure it is a massive victory, but is he giving a solemn pledge to the House that the code of practice will remove the word “should” and insert the word “will”? Is that what he is agreeing to?

[Tom Tugendhat]

Yes.

[Mr Jones]

Victory at last—there is such power in changing one word. The Minister has given a solemn undertaking on the Floor of the House that the code of practice will change the word “should” to “will”. A small victory for the ISC, but I am sure my colleagues will take it in the spirit in which it is offered. I say to the Minister gently that we could have agreed that the other day when we met, but no doubt the issue that we will be voting on tonight was concentrating his mind.

With that great victory under my belt and those of the members of the ISC, I turn to other amendments. New clause 3, in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, deals with

“cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”.

I understand why he has proposed the new clause. It is always worthwhile debating the issues, which run through the entire Bill. Am I assured that there are processes in place that protect our civil liberties? Yes, I am. However, there are occasions when things can go wrong or people ignore them. I think they have been strengthened greatly, but the right hon. Gentleman refers to an important point. I was on the Committee in 2017 when we did the inquiry into detention and rendition. That took a long time, but it was a good report given where it got to. It unearthed things that were not pleasant but had been done in our names as a democracy.

One conclusion the Committee came to was that in its view the UK tolerated actions and took others that were regarded as inexcusable. Well, they were inexcusable, because as the report outlined, we passed on information to allies who then used it. I think things have changed, and to give Members an example of how the ISC can improve things, we called for a review of the consolidated guidance surrounding the way that security operatives should operate regarding issues of rendition or torture. That led to the Fulford principles, which I think have moved on and tightened up the rules and guidance for members of our security services. That was a big movement forward.

I do not think the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden will push the new clause to a vote, but it reinforces the point that if we have a situation whereby, again, we get information that is passed to one of our allies, we must ensure that those principles are upheld. Am I confident that they are upheld now? I think I am, but how did we get to that pretty damning report in 2017? We got there because those principles and the guidance in place were not followed. We must be vigilant about that, and over the years the right hon. Gentleman has done not only this House but the country a service through his tenacity on these subjects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I agree, but that then places an unnecessary burden on the system. The current process with the Secretary of State, the judicial commissioner and the Prime Minister is robust enough to ensure that people are not doing this to find out what someone ordered on Amazon Prime this weekend or to look at their Tesco account, so I think those assurances are fine.

New clause 4 would

“remove the ability of the Secretary of State to authorise the interception of the communications of, or the obtaining of communications intended for, or private information belonging to, Members of Parliament.”

Again, it is good to have this debate, but I would support such a measure for the reasons I have outlined.

The other change in the Bill concerns bulk data. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings covered the original investigatory powers in detail, but there are now big data sets held not only by public authorities but by others, and that has made it more important that our security services are able to access them. Whenever we do this, however, it means more intrusion, so let me deal with the issue of oversight in the Bill, and with the broader, more intrusive powers to obtain internet connection records for the discovery of targets.

Again, that is something that I and other ISC members totally support, but the authorisation process is internal. One stance that the ISC has taken throughout all this is that if we are to give more powers to our security services, there must be a balance. There will not be a situation whereby what people have seen can be identified, but this power will drag in a lot of people who, as the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, are completely innocent. As I said, there is a need for such a power, but we thought there should be more oversight from the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Therefore, the points I made about amendment 15 are important.

The Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office does a great job of ensuring public support for what we do, but, again, there is an issue around bulk datasets. Some of the examples that were given to ISC members—thanks must go to the Minister, who arranged a meeting for the Committee to be briefed on this—make sense when it comes to the issue of low or no reasonable expectation of privacy. It is burdensome, for example, to access the electoral register, but today the Government have said that somehow that is a secret document. Well, that is not the case under this Bill, in which case it is important that the security services should be able to use it, rather than having to go through the warrantry process. That goes to the point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central raised earlier on, about the definition of “low expectation”.

Another perfectly legitimate reason that the security services need these measures is related to testing new AI models of learning. They need access to these new big datasets, which are out there and which companies use, and the Bill will allow them to have it without going through the warrantry system. If intelligence is going to be on the front foot when it comes to AI, we will have to have these big datasets that will teach the systems how to do it.

The problem comes back my hon. Friend’s question of what is deemed a low or no reasonable expectation of privacy. That is something we have considered throughout this process. One thing the ISC has considered is adding to the existing categories. One suggestion we put forward was that, when the agencies do this, they should have to email the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to notify them that they have done it.

[Tom Tugendhat]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

I hope the Minister is not going to intervene again. My legs might get wobbly if I have to sit down again. I might even need some smelling salts. He has explained the internal system, which I am quite satisfied with, but as I said to him and his civil servants—I think other members of the ISC have also said this—it is not us that he has to convince, but the public.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. I just want to assure him that I have taken on board his points. I went back to the agencies and assured myself of the challenge that he had raised and found what I think is a better answer than the one we looked at when we were chatting. I wrote to Sir Brian Leveson and I am delighted to say that he responded, confirming that he will pay specific oversight to this regime in the early years until he is content that it operates in the way that the ISC, the Government and the British public would expect. IPCO has taken on this responsibility, which, I think, answers the question more succinctly than it would be if it were included in the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

Well, I shall take that as half a victory.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Take them where you can get them!

[Mr Jones]

May I just get some clarity? That is a perfectly legitimate way of doing it, and it will mean not interfering with the existing system, which was the concern of both the services and the Minister. I understand that this not as simple as an email being sent. Will that mean that there will be a section looking at this issue in the first annual report? If that is the case, we could at least say to the public that it is actually being considered and the promise is being followed up.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The right hon. Member will understand that IPCO is operationally independent, so I will not instruct the office or speak for Sir Brian, who has been unbelievably rapid and helpful in his response today. I am sure that he will have heard the comments that the right hon. Member made and, no doubt, will want to draw attention to any areas where he has any doubts at all.

[Mr Jones]

That would be helpful. That would give reassurance to the public and provide a test of how the system works. As I have said, I am comfortable with the process of authorisation, but the public must be comfortable with it as well.

[Mr Jones]

I understand where the right hon. Gentleman is coming from. Our original idea about having an email was explained when I met the Minister and his civil servants. I think that that would really cut across some of the processes that we have in place. The suggestion that has been made would be one way of doing it, but IPCO already has the powers to look at such things. The only problem with doing that is that we would then have to set up someone in the agencies to produce another report. I do not want to do anything that holds up their work, and I think that that might do it.

Possibly the Minister’s suggestion of how Sir Brian Leveson is going to do it will give the public some reassurance. Let us not forget that Sir Brian has the power to take action if things are not being done correctly. If we read his reports, we can see that he is not fearful of doing these things. A fair compromise has been put forward. I think we have one and a half victories so far—

[Tom Tugendhat]

I think it’s two.

--- Later in debate ---

Turning to communications data and the way that will be dealt with, and the additional bodies that will have access to some powers that have previously only been in the hands of a very few, could the Minister clarify that in respect of local authorities, this will not be a permissive power? There are times when local government in its regulatory role will be working with the police, dealing with very serious and organised crime—I am thinking of licensing, trading standards and so on, for example. Where serious criminals can be involved in matters that pertain to the functions of local authorities, I accept that there are some cases in which they should have those quite extensive powers, but one would not want to think that every parish council in the land would enjoy the same legal powers as the SIS or MI5.

[Tom Tugendhat]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

The Minister is going to satisfy me immediately, it seems.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will satisfy my right hon. Friend immediately and, I hope, save him time in his speech. Local authority trading standards teams are responsible for a range of legislation where enforcement requires investigation and may need to draw on communications data. The idea is that the powers in this Bill will be in keeping with those powers, not for them to be expansive, so my right hon. Friend is right: it is for serious crimes, as has already been set out.

[Sir John Hayes]

That is excellent—it helps, because the schedule associated with that part of the Bill does not make that explicit. I hope that the Minister, having given that binding assurance to the House, will reinforce it in the explanatory notes associated with the Act and in the code attached to it.

[Tom Tugendhat]

indicated assent.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am seeing the Minister nodding. He might want to say a word or two more when he sums up.

[Sir John Hayes]

The Minister may want to intervene on me again to do exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.

[Tom Tugendhat]

On the grounds that it will save me time when I wrap up at the end of the debate, I will make it clear now. His Majesty’s Treasury is responsible for civil enforcement of financial sanctions regulations, and some information that is essential to carrying out its civil enforcement functions is now communications data, such as the timestamp on online banking transactions. His Majesty’s Treasury cannot currently use its information powers to compel that information to be provided by a telecoms operator, so to go back to the statement I made earlier, local authority trading standards teams are responsible for a range for legislation where enforcement requires investigation and may need to draw on communications data.

[Sir John Hayes]

That is very helpful and, I think, goes a fair way towards what I want to achieve. The Minister has therefore made clear that the power will not be permissive. If he uses those very words—forgive me for putting them into his mouth, Madam Deputy Speaker—that would also help. These are going to be rarely used, particular powers associated with regulatory or legal functions of local authorities, not permissively available to those local authorities at their whim. That is clear as crystal, is it not?

[Tom Tugendhat]

If my right hon. Friend will forgive me, I will use the words I am using. Those powers will be used as infrequently as we all hope they will be, but they will be used in keeping with the law as described. If the frequency increases, it will be because of the need to act; I am very cautious about saying that these crimes will disappear, and therefore the frequency will change. I am not willing to predict that criminality now.

[Sir John Hayes]

I entirely understand. I used the example myself of trading standards: in Lincolnshire, we have an issue with the sale of illegal cigarettes that has become not a trivial matter, but one of organised crime. It is not restricted to my county or locality: it is a national problem, and it is of course an example of where a local authority, working closely with the police, might well need to use those powers. By the way, those local authorities will be working with other agencies too: because money laundering is involved, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs might be involved, and so on and so forth. That is a good example of where those powers might be useful in catching very serious criminals indeed, but the word I wanted the Minister to use is that these powers are not permissive. He will understand what I mean by that, and I cannot see why that would present any problem at all, given the reasonable, sensible man he is.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I apologise to my right hon. Friend. These powers are not permissive in the sense that they are expansive: they are permissive only in the sense applied to them by this law, with the restriction of the powers that local authorities already have. They are not to be used in any way other than as set out very clearly in the Bill.

[Sir John Hayes]

I think that is helpful. The Minister will remember that when we debated the original Bill that became the Investigatory Powers Act, one or two newspapers used the term “the snoopers’ charter”, and images were used of local authorities using those powers to investigate people’s rubbish to make sure they were recycling properly, for example. I do not want to add unnecessary levity to our consideration tonight, because we are dealing with very serious matters indeed, but the Minister will understand how that kind of misunderstanding—indeed, misinformation—could do far more harm than good.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Again, just to clarify for my right hon. Friend, this Bill offers no greater expansion than his own Bill did in 2016. In the same way he ensured that Bill was no snoopers’ charter, I assure him that this one is not either.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

Yes, exactly. The right hon. Gentleman has put it very clearly, and the sense of what the Minister has said has reassured me that it is not the Government’s intention to extend those powers beyond the very strict legal limits associated with the kind of organised crime that he and I have both cited. For me, that is considerable progress. The right hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about half a win; I think that is three quarters of a win, at least. For that reason, I feel that I can move on to my next request of the Minister.

We spoke earlier about IPCO, and its role and association with Government. As the Minister will know and as the right hon. Member for North Durham referred to, this legislation provides for a report to be made available to the ISC on an annual basis. There has been some concern that that report might be rather different from the one that is made available to Ministers and others, and my anxiety is that it should not be different. All that it should exclude is current operational matters; nothing else should be excluded from what my Committee considers, and clearly, it needs to be the same as what IPCO gets. We cannot have three or four different reports.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance.

[Sir John Hayes]

That is a 100% win. It is not half a win or three quarters of a win; it is just a win. So we are making huge progress tonight, partly due to the diligence of the members of the ISC and other Members of this House, including the official Opposition, but largely due to the reasonableness of the Minister. He is a listening figure, and he is growing in stature and reputation as a result. I am delighted that the Minister has agreed to the fourth of my requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I share those concerns, but I wish to put on the record my concern for my constituents in relation to how the changes are interpreted and how they will affect people.

I will give the last sentence of the quotation from the Computer & Communications Industry Association:

“They could risk deterring investment in improving service for UK consumers and contribute to a sense that the UK is not a safe market in which to invest.”

Those are the four tech companies, and the questions are on the record—I put them in Hansard—so that perhaps the Minister can give me an answer. Will he outline what mitigations are in place for the matters affecting those four companies in order to secure the tech industry’s place in the fabric of our lives in the United Kingdom?

I am pleased that the Minister has accepted amendment 23, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). The Democratic Unionist party was minded to support that amendment, but, because it has been accepted, we will not need to do so.

While I am aware of valid concerns, I am also aware of the need for this Bill, which the gallant Minister will know about better than most in the House. He served in Northern Ireland, so he understands the implications for us in Northern Ireland and the lives that we have led for some years. I was a part-time soldier in the Ulster Defence Regiment and in the Territorial Army for 14 and a half years. I have been a recipient of security intelligence and know how it can save lives. I am here today because of intelligence, which found out what the IRA’s intentions were. That is a fact. That has affected not just me; over the years, the intelligence services have saved the lives of other hon. and gallant Members. I have many friends who served and who are alive today because of the intelligence service or the Security Service. I had many other friends who unfortunately are not alive today; I remember them as well, so I do.

We must remember that the whole objective of the Bill is to keep us safe, to keep us secure and to ensure that our lives with our families can continue. I do hope that a balance has been struck, as the Minister outlined, because freedom is a prize worthy of getting it right. I know that the Minister wants to get it right, and I want it to be right. Madam Deputy Speaker, you want it to be right as well. Let us do it and get it right tonight.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Right hon. and hon. Members will be delighted to hear that, having answered colleagues as we went along, I have only a few short words to conclude. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I know how to keep them happy.

Amendments 3 to 6 to clause 14 concern the restoration of specified public authorities’ general information powers to secure the disclosure of communications data from a telecommunications operator by compulsion. I pay tribute and thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). I hope that Members will have noticed that I have listened carefully to Members across the House, and I believe that this Bill has been pulled together carefully alongside the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is a slight shame I cannot thank the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) in person, who is sadly at a funeral today. He has played an important role in contributing to and leading the engagement of which I have had the advantage in preparing this Bill.

Let me quickly touch on one or two points. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) spoke about notices. It is important to note that the notices do not block innovation. They do not stop a technical patch or infringe on companies’ ability to update their systems. All they do is make sure that the existing level of access remains while that is being looked at. That is a reasonable element to ensure that the British people are kept safe by the British law enforcement authorities.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I understand what my right hon. Friend is saying, but the practical consequence of issuing such a notice is that the development of the product about which concern has been expressed has to stop. Therefore, the infringement on commercial liberty, in practice, is exactly what I have described, is it not?

[Tom Tugendhat]

If my right hon. and learned Friend will forgive me, I will be able discuss that in a more secure environment, but I can only say, “Not necessarily.” I will be able to describe why that is in a different environment, but I cannot do it here.

The reason for not accepting amendments 22 and 23 —I understand the points made by right hon. and hon. Friends and Members across the House—is that we are talking about a very limited number of people. One Secretary of State is already used to do the initial request. The second person on the triple lock is a judicial commissioner—a judge. The third therefore has to be one of the four Secretaries of State left. Therefore, it is important that we make sure that it is somebody in whom the Prime Minister has confidence. Given that we are about to have a new Government—I hope the new Conservative Government, but still a new one—it is entirely possible that there will be a new Cabinet and that the routine explanation will not be satisfactory. As routine duties do not have legal clarity, we will not use them.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Minister has used that argument before about new Secretaries of State, and it is complete nonsense, is it not? It would not happen on day one unless the Prime Minister suddenly got covid or was indisposed. By the time this came in, those three people would be there anyway. His argument is pretty weak.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The right hon. Member has made his point and I have made mine; I am afraid I will leave it there rather than continue. The ways in which we have been able to engage on the Bill has been incredibly supportive and helpful.

The removal of clause 15 from the Bill would prevent the intelligence agencies and the National Crime Agency from detecting some national security and serious crime threats, and those intent on committing child sexual exportation and abuse. Given the robust oversight of the regime in general, and the internet connection records in particular, we simply do not believe that this is in the best interests of the British public. Removal would benefit only those who threaten our safety and serve to make the work of the intelligence services and the NCA significantly harder as they seek to protect us and bring paedophiles to justice. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner already has the necessary powers to inspect and report on all parts of the CD regime. If the Investigatory Powers Commissioner wishes is to focus attention on condition D of the internet connection record, they have the power to do so. With those clarifications, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I beg to move, That the Bill be read the Third time.

I pay huge tribute to all the contributions from across this House, and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who whipped this through in exemplary fashion and will be delighted that since my appointment he has not had to take a Minister’s place on a Bill. He will also be grateful, along with me, to Lord Sharpe in the other place who has led on this Bill brilliantly, and taken us through with exemplary speed. I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who has been a great friend for many years. We have now completed a Bill together, which really does bring us that bit closer. I also say an enormous thanks to Phoebe, Fintan, Francesca, James, Emer, Lucy x 2, Megan, Sophie, and Tom Ball, whose exemplary work in the Bill Committee has been fantastic.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is gratifying that we will get this Bill on the statute book, because it will give our security services the necessary powers to keep us all safe. I add my thanks to the staff of the Committee on which I and other Members served, and like the Minister I thank the civil servants who I have engaged with throughout the passage of the Bill. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for his engagement on the Bill. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) would have liked to have been here today. He has played an integral part not just in speaking about the Bill, but in his work on the ISC. As I said earlier, unfortunately he is at the funeral of Lord Cormack; the House will understand his reason.

As I said, the Bill will improve our abilities. Perhaps the Minister would also like to put on record his thanks to the ISC, which he forgot to do. It might have been a painful process at times, but can I give him some advice, possibly for the future? He may well have been able to solve some of these issues earlier in our discussions, and avoided keeping his colleagues here on a Monday night—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities says from a sedentary position that that was impossible, but the Minister has agreed to our amendments.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I was going to do so!

[Mr Jones]

The Minister says that he was going to, but if he had done that last week we could perhaps have had very short discussions tonight.

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Committee stage & Report stage
Thursday 7th March 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 8 to 10 stand part.

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 contains world-leading oversight arrangements, which have strengthened the safeguards that apply to the use of investigatory powers. The clauses will enhance this oversight regime, including the role of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, to ensure it is resilient and that the IPC can continue to effectively carry out their functions. This includes creating a statutory basis for appointing deputy IPCs to whom certain functions can be delegated and, in exceptional circumstances, the appointment of temporary judicial commissioners. The clauses also place certain existing oversight functions on a statutory footing and provide clarity to public authorities in their error reporting obligations. These are important and targeted amendments to ensure the oversight regime remains robust and the IPC can continue to carry out their role effectively.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Personal data breaches

[Tom Tugendhat]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 11, page 31, line 36, leave out “a court or tribunal” and insert “the Investigatory Powers Tribunal”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 2.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 2.

Clause stand part.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Clause 11 will ensure that there is clarity for telecommunications operators operating within the IPA framework about which regulatory body certain personal data breaches should be notified to. It also provides a statutory basis for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner being notified of such breaches. Without this change, there will be confusion about personal data reporting obligations and a regulatory gap in respect of certain personal data breaches by telecommunications operators not being dealt with by the appropriate regulatory body. The clause also ensures that an individual affected by a personal data breach can be notified of the breach by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, if the IPC deems to it to be in the public interest to do so. This will enable them to seek remedy from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

Government amendments 1 and 2 build upon the provisions already contained in clause 11 by providing a clear route to redress for those affected by personal data breaches committed by telecommunications operators. They ensure that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider and determine complaints about personal data breaches committed by TOs and grant a remedy. The IPT already has significant experience of considering complaints from individuals who believe they have been the victim of unlawful interference by public authorities. It is therefore the appropriate forum to consider complaints regarding certain personal data breaches.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment made: 2, in clause 11, page 32, line 19, at end insert—

‘(1A) In section 65 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (the Tribunal)—

(a) in subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert—

“(ba) to consider and determine any complaints made to them which, in accordance with subsection (4AA), are complaints for which the Tribunal is the appropriate forum;”

(b) after subsection (4) insert—

“(4AA) The Tribunal is the appropriate forum for a complaint if it is a complaint by an individual about a relevant personal data breach.

(4AB) In subsection (4AA) “relevant personal data breach” means a personal data breach that the individual is informed of under section 235A(5) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (serious personal data breaches).”

(1B) In section 67 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (exercise of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction)—

(a) in subsection (1)(b), after “65(2)(b)” insert “, (ba)”;

(b) in subsection (5)—

(i) the words from “section” to the end become paragraph (a), and

(ii) after that paragraph insert “, or

(b) section 65(2)(ba) if it is made more than one year after the personal data breach to which it relates.”

(c) in subsection (6), for “reference” substitute “complaint or reference has been”.

(1C) In section 68 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Tribunal procedure), for subsection (8) substitute—

“(8) In this section “relevant Commissioner” means—

(a) the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or any other Judicial Commissioner,

(b) the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for Northern Ireland, or

(c) the Information Commissioner.”’—(Tom Tugendhat.)

This amendment provides for the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to be the appropriate forum for complaints by individuals about certain personal data breaches reported to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner under section 235A of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (personal data breaches).

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Offence of unlawfully obtaining communications data

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 39, clause 12, page 33, leave out lines 16 and 17.

This amendment would remove one of the examples cases where a relevant person has lawful authority to obtain communications data from a telecommunications operator or postal operator, being where the data has been “published”.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The clause relates to section 11 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which created an offence where a relevant public authority knowingly or recklessly obtained communications data from a telecoms or postal operator without lawful authority. That is an extra protection against unlawful invasions of privacy by public authorities. Comms data can of course be vital to prevent serious crime or to assist in missing persons investigations, but it can also be seriously invasive if not monitored, as such data can reveal all sorts of details about our lives and the people that we are linked with. The clause makes changes to that offence.

It is said that there is a lack of clarity around the concept of lawful authority, so the clause includes some examples of what lawful authority is. Most are uncontroversial—for example, where there is a statutory basis for gathering the data, where there is a relevant court order or an authorisation, or where it is obtained to respond to a call to the emergency services. However, we contest the assertion that new subsection (3A)(e) is a proper example of lawful authority, referring to:

“where the communications data had been published before the relevant person obtained it”.

We are concerned that that is not a correct expression of the law as it stands.

The simple fact of data being published is not in and of itself lawful authority for it to be obtained and subject to surveillance. The fact that I publish a Facebook post at such and such a time in such and such a place does not give public authorities the right to seek it from Facebook. In fact, on a Zoom meeting about a controversial political campaign, it cannot be the case that Zoom can then be ordered by the police to obtain the relevant communications data simply because the data was published and available to those who attended the meeting.

We need a very careful explanation from the Minister about what precisely is intended by the example in paragraph (e) because as drafted—again, it depends on how we interpret these things—it seems to be open to an interpretation that anything even semi-publicly available can be obtained by public authorities without anything more.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will speak more widely to clause 12 before addressing the amendment. The clause does not create new routes to obtain communications data outside the Investigatory Powers Act. Rather, it provides examples of existing routes to acquire communications data in order to put the existing position, as set out in the communications data code of practice, on to a statutory footing. This will provide clarity that acquiring communications data in this way will amount to lawful authority for the purposes of the offence in section 11 of the IPA. It makes it clear that sharing of communications data between public bodies is lawful. It is not the intention of section 11 to discourage public sector sharing of data when administering public services for purposes such as fraud prevention. Clause 12 puts that beyond doubt.

While discussing clause 12, I will take the opportunity to set out that a communications data authorisation can amount to lawful authority to require a telecommunications operator to carry out any necessary activity on their systems to enable or facilitate the obtaining of the relevant communications data. The list of examples of what will amount to lawful authority in clause 12 will provide additional clarity to the existing drafting of section 60A(5) in the Investigatory Powers Act, which sets out what can be authorised under part 3 for the purposes of acquiring communications data.

I would also like to address an inconsistency with paragraph 176 of the explanatory notes for the 2016 Act and the conduct that the Act permits. To be clear, a communications data authorisation may authorise interference with equipment by a person where that is done to enable or facilitate the acquisition of communications data for the purposes of identifying an entity as well as information about their previous or current location.

The Government do not support amendment 39, moved by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. Additional authority for published material should not be required for its disclosure by a telecommunications operator to a public authority when that data has been disclosed with the consent of that operator. The consent of the operator provides the lawful authority for the obtaining of the previously published communications data, which public authorities can rely on. It places the existing position, set out in paragraph 15.11 of the communications data code of practice, on a primary legislative footing. It does not create new acquisition routes.

Clause 13 amends the definition of communications data to include subscriber and account data, ensuring that this communications data is available to investigators with an IPA part 3, even if it is transmitted as the content of the message. That is not a broadening of the definition but a clarification of scope. “Subscriber data”, or “account data”, includes the details provided when someone completes an online registration form for a telecommunications service or system. This change overcomes the current uncertainty for investigators about the data types that will be “communications data” and therefore available to them.

Clause 14 restores the general information gathering powers to regulatory or supervisory bodies, which were repealed by section 12 of the 2016 Act. It will ensure that public authorities will be able to utilise their own pre-existing statutory powers to acquire communications data for civil purposes. These are existing statutory powers that have been conferred on public authorities by Parliament—for example, in the regulation of the financial markets to ensure market stability.

Since 2016, the data sought has increasingly moved online and is now being caught by the definition of “communications data” in the 2016 Act. For example, His Majesty’s Treasury is responsible for the civil enforcement of financial sanctions regulations. Some information that is essential in carrying out its civil enforcement functions, such as the timestamp of an online banking transaction, is now communications data, and His Majesty’s Treasury cannot currently use its powers to compel that information to be provided by a telecommunications operator. Communications data is available under the IPA only if the matter under investigation is a serious crime, and so is out of reach for public authorities exercising civil enforcement functions.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I thank the Minister for his response and his explanation. We will of course take that away and give it consideration again. He has referred to codes of practice being put into statute, so we will go away and look at those codes of practice. Of course, codes of practice can sometimes be inconsistent with various laws as well, so this is not necessarily the end of the matter. It would be helpful if the Minister could perhaps—in writing, or perhaps we will have to revisit it on Report—look at the specific examples that I gave and just explain whether or not those amount to prior publications of comms data.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I very much appreciate that, and that will hopefully help to clear things up before we get to the next stage of proceedings. I will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

My anxiety is that we should be very clear about what the limits are on the public bodies concerned, who those public bodies are, and in what circumstances they might exercise the powers that the Bill confers. It will be very much in the Government’s and the Minister’s interests to be very clear and certain about that as we make this case publicly. If I were to be for a moment—but only a moment—fanciful, it might well be that a member of the public will say, “Why should a local authority have similar powers to MI5?” I am not sure that it is quite like that, and I know the Minister will be able to reassure, through me, the wider public, but that is the kind of argument one can see possibly being presented in the media and elsewhere. I speak merely to test the Minister on this and ask him to let us know when he will make this list available—perhaps during the course of our consideration. I know that the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has asked for this. Will the Minister fulfil the promise he gave without delay?

[Tom Tugendhat]

As always, my right hon. Friend asks a pertinent question. I hope he will forgive me for saying that I very much hope that the letter I asked to be sent arrived in his inbox this morning. He may not have seen it, which I completely understand, as there are many pressing issues on his time. I have also attached it into the packet for the Bill and indeed copied it to the ISC secretariat, which has done such an important job in ensuring that we are all as one on this. I hope very much that that will answer my right hon. Friend’s questions. If it does not, he knows where I am—I would be delighted to clarify it further. As my right hon. Friend has very kindly asked, I shall give that list now, for the record: HM Revenue and Customs, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Treasury, the National Crime Agency, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Competition and Markets Authority.

My right hon. Friend reminds me of that famous scene in “Yes, Prime Minister”—thank God defence is held at central authority, or we would not have to worry about the Russians; we would have a civil war in two weeks. His point about local authorities having intelligence powers is valid. They do not have the same intelligence powers as MI5—let us be absolutely clear about that. That is not what we are offering.

[Sir John Hayes]

It does the Minister great credit that he has made that list available during the course of our consideration. That is very important. What I had feared might happen was that we might not get it while we were in Committee. In fact, I have not actually seen it, but I am grateful to him for making it available, at least, during our consideration.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

This is an area that concerns me. I am quite certain the security services have protocols on how to deal with such things, but it worries me that the DWP is on that list. Having been involved in work on the Horizon Post Office scandal for many years, I know the DWP did not cover itself in glory on some of those cases. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that there are protocols governing when and how it will use those powers? That, I think, would give the public some assurance that there is a standard for how they will be used.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me towards an area that the Bill does not cover, so I hope he will forgive me for focusing on what it does cover, such as the safeguards. Clause 14 will limit communications data acquisition to the purpose of a body required to meet its civil functions and duties, such as a regulatory body providing oversight of financial markets, or indeed the DWP overseeing different elements of its responsibilities. Where disclosure is in support of a criminal prosecution and IPA part 3 authorisations for communications data must continue to be sought, using the existing safeguards and oversight provided for by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s office, the courts will oversee the use of those powers by public authorities in the same way as the acquisition of non-communications data under the existing powers. He has asked me specifically about a connected area, so—I hope he will forgive me—I will have a look at it and write to him very specifically about that.

[Mr Jones]

May I suggest that the Minister does write to the Committee? I accept the safeguards in place, but for organisations other than the security services, I want to know what internal mechanisms they have to ensure that use of those powers is proportionate in terms of investigations and so on, and what training and protocols they are using. If the Minister could write to us on that, that would be helpful.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Forgive me, but the right hon. Gentleman is asking for a very large piece of work there. I am setting out the legal authority under which those organisations can act. Their internal processes may be different in different circumstances and be answerable to different Ministers.

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry, but I do not agree with the Minister. He is giving those other public bodies additional powers, and I think it is quite reasonable for this Committee and the public to be assured of how those powers are actually going to be used. As I say, I have no problem with the security services, because I am well aware that they have very clear, strong protocols and safeguards governing the use of their powers internally, with authorisations and so on. I think he just needs to ask those other Departments how they are going to do this, and what the internal mechanisms are.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am very happy to ask them; I am just stating clearly that they are not under the responsibility that I have as a Minister. The legal powers that they are given are not additional powers; they are repetitions of the IPA 2016, so they are not additional powers—[Interruption.] Forgive me, but they are not additional powers. Their existing codes of practice under the different organisations have their own responsibilities within them.

[Mr Jones]

I beg to differ. In the next clause, we will come on to the breadth and depth of the new powers, but that is a different argument—I will save that until then. However, he is the Minister and, in my experience, the Minister leads the Bill. I would have thought it would be quite simple to ask those other Departments what those protocols are. If he does not ask, he does not get.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will happily ask. The right hon. Gentleman is asking for internal management structures, though.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the Minister for offering me a second bite of the cherry. Perhaps I can offer a Hegelian synthesis between him and the right hon. Member for North Durham. We talked earlier about operational purposes, but we have to be careful about that: in the case of the agents of the police, one cannot publish purposes in fine detail, because that would be unhelpful. However, in broad terms, perhaps the way forward on this is to illustrate the kind of purposes that the bodies the Minister described might employ, within the legal constraints that he just set out. Perhaps that is the way forward; it would certainly satisfy me, and I cannot think that would not help to satisfy the right hon. Member for North Durham, who is a reasonable man—not my right hon. Friend, but a right hon. Gentleman and a personal friend, which is better than being a right hon. Friend.

[Tom Tugendhat]

As always, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s contribution. That is covered in many areas in the letter I wrote to him.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

In an earlier response to comments by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, the Minister helpfully mentioned the letter that I think has been sent to the right hon. Member and possibly other members of the Committee. Can the Minister confirm that that letter will also be sent to the Opposition?

[Tom Tugendhat]

To be absolutely clear, the letter was in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, so it was sent to him, it was copied to the secretariat of the ISC and it is in the Bill pack. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central therefore has access to it.

[Mr Jones]

May I ask the Minister to look at his internal process again? We also had this problem with the National Security Bill. I do not know whether he should change the pigeon post he is using to ensure people have it. May I also point out that the ISC is not constantly in session? Therefore, if he has to send it to the ISC, we do not automatically get it until our next meeting or when we do the next reading.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am delighted to clarify that the letter was emailed to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings. He is a traditionalist in many ways, but I believe he has entered the electronic age.

[Sir John Hayes]

I had it printed out on parchment.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Clause 15

Internet connection records

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The changes made by clause 15 should transform the intelligence services and the National Crime Agency’s ability to detect serious criminals and those seeking to undermine national security. Current internet connection record conditions only enable identification of individuals involved in known events. That means an investigator must know the date, time and service being used, preventing identification of offenders where they cannot be linked to a specific time of access. For example, where analysis of a seized device identifies a site serving images of child sexual exploitation, it would not currently be possible to search ICRs for subjects accessing that site beyond a specific known event. New condition D would help to identify other subjects accessing those sites. This will not be a fishing exercise. As with all investigatory powers, the case for requesting ICR data must be necessary, proportionate and intelligence-led. As Committee members will have heard this week, the benefit to the agencies is in being more, not less, specific.

The new condition will be subject to robust safeguards, including limiting the statutory purposes available, stringent necessity and proportionality requirements and independent oversight, including regular inspections by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office. Where internal authorisation takes place for urgent and national security-related applications, authorising officers must be independent of the operation and not in the line management chain of the applicant. If an investigator knowingly or recklessly obtained ICRs—for example, if the request was clearly not proportionate—they would be at risk of having committed a section 11 offence of unlawfully obtaining communications data, which can result in a fine or imprisonment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

Exactly. That point was made when we debated the original Act, and I think that I committed at the time to those kinds of things being detailed in the annual report. To clarify a point that was made earlier, David Anderson was clear at the time, and has been since, that we cannot detail the operational purposes of the agencies if doing so would compromise them. The techniques and approaches that they necessarily use in the performance of their duties could be compromised if we were to talk in detailed terms about the character of their operational activities. However, we can speak in broader terms about the kinds of circumstances in which powers might be used—and all the more so for the other public bodies, in a sense, because even if a serious criminal investigation is taking place, those investigations are not typically as secret as they might necessarily be in respect of the security and intelligence community.

Perhaps those two grounds—greater sight of the processes in those bodies and clarity about the circumstances in which the powers can be used; in other words, exceptionally and for very serious matters—would be helpful ways of dealing with some of the points raised by my colleague on the ISC, the right hon. Member for North Durham.

[Tom Tugendhat]

As usual, right hon. and hon. Members have raised some excellent points. Let me be clear: it is not true to say that there is no judicial oversight. To say that there is no judicial oversight would be correct if the IPC were not in place. I know what the right hon. Member for North Durham is going to say, but that is a form of judicial oversight.

As to the way in which the authorisations work, I hope that I have been clear—I will repeat it to ensure that I am—that an investigating officer would have to make an application to use the powers. That would have to go to a senior officer in their service who is not in their chain of command: someone who is not overseeing the operation or in their management chain—a separate element. Any abuse of that system could mean that that individual, or those individuals, are in violation of section 11. I know that the right hon. Member for North Durham takes his responsibilities on the ISC exceptionally seriously and is fully aware that sometimes there can be a pressing need for operational action at pace. That is what this is also designed to help. It is important that officers have the ability to act under a regulatory framework that means that abuses are, at worst, extremely limited due to various constraints.

[Mr Jones]

I accept that and I have confidence in the internal protocols—do not get me wrong on that—but the Minister does not have to convince me or members of this Committee; it is about the public perception. What is the problem? If we are not going to have judicial oversight in terms of judicial authorisation, what is to stop us having another system whereby, when it is used, the IPC is informed? We could send a simple email so that it would at least have ongoing oversight when these powers are being used.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The right hon. Gentleman is creating his own haystack here. Although I hope as ever that this power will be used only exceptionally rarely, sadly the nature of serious and organised crime and terror in this country means that it will be used more often. There is a slight misunderstanding as to how this will be used. Targeting a train website or a single authority would not be proportionate or meet the necessity provisions within the Bill. It would be neither necessary nor proportionate. In fact, it would be unnecessary and would be vastly disproportionate, because it would be a mass collection exercise that would neither be targeted in a way that would satisfy the proportionality requirement, and nor would it give a useful answer—it would give such bulk data as to be useless—and therefore it would not be necessary.

The whole point of this is that it sets out a series of conditions in which these powers could be used—perhaps against a certain website, that is true—but on the basis of intelligence. It would have to have a particular cause and a particular time. This is not a Venn diagram with a single circle, but a Venn diagram with four or five circles; it must be in the centre of those for it to be necessary and proportionate.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I would be reassured if there was independent advanced judicial oversight. The Minister has said a couple of times that the powers will be used “exceptionally”. What is the difficulty in making sure that there is an exception for urgent cases of advanced judicial authorisation for use of these powers?

[Tom Tugendhat]

“Exceptional” does not mean that there is necessarily huge amounts of time to act; exceptional means that the seriousness of the offence is extremely grave. These powers are for things such as child sexual exploitation. I wish it were not so, but even in this country, the police very often have to act extremely speedily to prevent harm to a child and sometimes, very sadly, multiple children. They have also to act extremely speedily to prevent terrorist plots or other forms of very serious organised violence or criminal activity.

That is why “exceptional” does not necessarily mean that it can be dealt with in a procedural way over a number of weeks; exceptional may mean absolutely pressing as well, and that is what this is designed for. The right hon. Member for North Durham may have been aware from briefings that I believe he has received that, in some circumstances, this Bill will reduce the time taken to interrupt serious abuse of children, from months and occasionally years down to days and weeks. That is surely an absolutely essential thing to do, but that will not work unless these powers are used according to the Act, with the important words being “proportionate” and “necessary”. The reason I repeat those words is that were the intelligence services to go on some sort of fishing expedition—and I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that they would—that would not be legally permissible under this Act and nor would it achieve the required results, because it would turn up so much data that it would simply be an unusable, vast collection of fluff. Effectively, instead of targeting the needle, they would have merely collected another haystack.

[Mr Jones]

It is not about a fishing expedition, but they will get into a fishing expedition anyway. He says that train lines would not be affected, but they would. If someone wants to see an individual’s travel pattern, that is what they may do. Therefore, a lot of people’s data will be dragged in, not because it has been looked for but because it will come in anyway.

The problem is that if the argument is about speed—which I do not necessarily think is the case in some cases—the Minister has to do two things to reassure people that the powers are going to be used in the right way. First, he must provide pre-authorisation judicial oversight, and secondly, the IPC should be told, perhaps via a simple email, when the powers are used. That would at least allow it to look at the trends and uncover any concerns. I accept the protocols in place and am 100% sure that they are being followed, but it is possible that some people will not follow them and that is what we have to guard against.

[Tom Tugendhat]

This is a somewhat odd argument, because the right hon. Gentleman and I are slightly together but also arguing at cross purposes. Both of us have a very high regard for the intelligence services and are confident in their integrity, but we are slightly at cross purposes because he believes that we are not satisfying the oversight element, but I believe we are.

Let me be clear. I am not being a stick in the mud about this for any political reason. I actually happen to believe that this is the right way to approach this. There is a constant balance in all forms of oversight between the ability to act quickly and the ability to be controlled from outside. I believe that this sets in place a very significant, burdensome requirement on those who are taking these responsibilities to act according to certain principles. To repeat, the principles are necessity and proportionality. I do not think anybody in here would argue against those. What this requires them to do is make sure that the principles are met by effectively targeting in advance.

The right hon. Gentleman’s comment about train line use would, I am afraid, not satisfy that proportional need. The individual would have to be specifically identified in advance. The pattern of use of the website from the single point and to the point of contact—from a phone to an internet server or whatever it might happen to be—would have to be clarified. These ICRs are Venn diagram circles that are getting narrower and narrower. The idea that this would end up with some sort of week-long or month-long trawl of a train line website is, I am afraid, not permissible under the 2016 Act. Were any intelligence officers to do it—though I do not believe that they would—they would fall foul of section 11 and would not be acting necessarily and proportionately. Therefore, it would not be permissible.

It is pretty clear that existing conditions B and C already enable public authorities to make an application for a known individual’s internet connections. New condition D only enables a request for details to identify individuals who have used one or more specified internet services in a specified time.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I think that is the point. I do not think anyone is arguing against the fact that there will sometimes be exceptional circumstances that require haste. Everybody accepts that, but the issue with condition D is that it is explicit in removing the targeted nature of the other conditions. It is where they do not know the time or person and do not have the data available that they are using condition D. There is nothing in the Bill to make clear that it can only be used in exceptional circumstances. How can we square that circle? I do not think that anyone would disagree with the fact that there needs to be an ability to move at pace at times, but there is nothing here that says that power could only be used in those sorts of circumstances. Condition D creates a situation where we are going to hoover up data on a huge number of people, but there is nothing to say how long we are going to hold on to that data for, or what would be done with it.

[Tom Tugendhat]

To answer the last part of the question first, the holding on to data and what is to be done with it is the same as under the IPA generally. Information can be held or not held according to those provisions. This Bill does not change any of that, which is why that is not covered here, and I know the hon. Gentleman would not expect it to be.

It is worth pointing out that condition D is not only no more intrusive than conditions A, B or C, in terms of data—

[Owen Thompson]

rose—

[Tom Tugendhat]

Let me just finish the point; I know the hon. Member will come back to me.

Condition D is no more intrusive, and it does require the serious crime threshold, which does add an extra layer before it can be used. I hear the hon. Member’s point; the condition still requires proportionality and necessity, so it could not be simply anybody who is using Facebook, because clearly that is not proportionate. It still requires that targeting; it still requires those Venn diagrams, if he likes, to close over a target; and, even then, it requires the serious crime threshold.

[Sir John Hayes]

The key thing to understand here is that the agencies have always had the ability to intercept communications data. Communications data is one’s letters. Communications data is one’s phone calls. We speak about communications data now, mindful of the way that people communicate now, and we think of the internet and telephones, but the process of intercepting communications has been a core part of the work of the agencies since the agencies began, so we need to put this in context.

The difference here is the nature of how people communicate. It is right to say that—I rise to be helpful to the Minister—the character of encryption, in particular, is making it harder, even in the kind of serious cases that have been described, for those who are missioned to keep us safe to do so by accessing the information they need. So it is right that the law needs to be updated. The critical thing for me, therefore, is this matter of the threshold, which was debated when we debated the original Act.

As far as I understand, this Bill does not change the threshold; it reinforces the threshold. If that is the case and, as has been said, exceptionality is a measure of significance and not complexity—some cases will be complicated, but it is about significance—then the only outstanding difference, as the Minister has said, is oversight. I think the reporting in the annual report matters—the right hon. Member for North Durham made that point—and that would be a small concession to make, if I can describe it as such. I take the point about alacrity, too. What we cannot do is slow down the process by making it bureaucratic.

I think there is an easy way out of this. Being very clear about thresholds, as the Minister very helpfully has been today, is perhaps the way out of it. To clarify that in writing might be helpful.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will give way to the right hon. Member for North Durham.

[Mr Jones]

I do not think anyone could describe the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings or myself as woolly liberals, but I do have a concern with this. Where we are giving an extra power—which is what this is, although the Minister disagrees about the breadth—I want to ensure somehow that, in a democracy, we have oversight of it. I do not want to make it difficult for the agencies to implement their powers, but there are simple ways of doing so. That could mean telling the IPC when it occurs.

I have faith in the internal mechanisms that the Minister refers to, but I was also on the Intelligence and Security Committee in 2017, when we did our rendition and detention inquiry. All the safeguards were in there then, and they were ignored. That led to some fundamental changes, including the Fulford principles. There are occasions when the best things in legislation are not followed through, and that can lead to some very serious consequences.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point and the spirit in which it was made. I reiterate that requests for communications data must be approved by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, as he knows, unless they are urgent or for the purposes of national security. That is where this is being focused. Condition D, which we have spoken about, will be restricted to only the intelligence services and the National Crime Agency when it is pursuing a national security element within its remit—that is a separate area, as he knows. Those organisations have the necessary expertise to raise compliant and proportionate restrictions.

Again and again, the principle in the Bill is that the least intrusive power must be used. The oversight starts internally, but very rapidly goes externally, whether it is to IPCO or a judicial commissioner. The ability to review is always there, and the penalties under section 11 of the 2016 Act, which we all hope will never be needed or used, are pretty onerous on anybody who abuses their power or in any way exploits their ability in order to conduct themselves in a way that we would all agree is unsatisfactory in a democracy. It is really important to say that.

Going back to the question raised by the hon. Member for Midlothian, the reality is that condition D applications will limit collateral intrusion as much as is reasonably practical. The returned data may only provide an indication of involvement in an investigation, and further analysis will likely be necessary to allow fuller determination. That is the nature of handling intelligence data and then conducting an analysis on the back of it. In all cases, that activity will have to be justified, and will be no more than is necessary to achieve the desired outcome.

To be absolutely clear, that has to be targeted. This is a series of circles in a Venn diagram to target as narrowly as possible. Were others to be captured in that narrowest possible target, that data could not be held, or a separate application would have to be made in order to hold it. For example, one can imagine a circumstance in which an intelligence agency is targeting a paedophile on a particular street. Using different forms of communication technique, it narrows it down from a handset to an operator, a particular website, a particular time, and so on, so the Venn diagram narrows—it is very focused. If it turns out that there is another paedophile operating in exactly the same area at that time, that would require a separate application, because it is a separate target. The data could not just be held. Nor would it be ignored—I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not suggest it should be. But the judicial oversight needs to be gone through and the application needs to be made. It is a separate warrant, and so on.

[Mr Jones]

In the example the Minister gives, at the same time the agency targets that individual, it will have a lot of other people who communicated with that individual. How long will that information be kept? That is the concern people have. It is not the depth, but this is broad. Most of those people would be completely innocent of anything. There is then the issue of how long that information is kept and who makes the decision about how long to keep it.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Forgive me, but I disagree with the right hon. Member on this. It is unlikely that there would be a large number of people at a specific geographic location, using a specific cell site, from a specific handset, viewing a specific website at a specific time. Once it is narrowed down like that, the numbers are very small. That does not mean that any intrusion that is not legally authorised is acceptable—that is absolutely not what I am saying. But we are getting down to very small numbers of people, and quite deliberately so, in order to achieve an intelligence outcome.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

As I understand it, the Minister is describing the powers that already exist under the 2016 Act. If we are down to that level of knowledge of where, when and who, then what in the Bill goes beyond that? I do not follow.

[Tom Tugendhat]

In the existing Act, one would have to be entirely specific about a particular time. It could not be 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm; an internet connection record could be done only at 5.30 pm exactly. The Bill extends that a bit, but it still has to be very targeted. This is a proportionate change in the law to allow the intelligence services to collect information that would enable the targeting of serious and organised crime.

[Mr Jones]

Let me go back to the Trainline example. Suppose it is not child exploitation—the Minister is possibly right that it is specific, and hopefully there are not many people in one street—and someone is trying to look for a person’s travel plans, so they want to know how many people in an area have contacted Trainline. It will be more than one person, so there will be a lot of other people they are not looking for in there. That is the problem, and that is all that the ISC, the hon. Members for Midlothian and for Glasgow South and the Labour Front Benchers are saying.

Earlier the Minister used the words “control from outside”. I am sorry if he sees oversight as control, but I certainly do not. It is about giving confidence to the public that there is independent oversight over these powers, whether that is informing the IPCO when they are used or having pre-authorisation, as was suggested earlier. I do not see the problem with keeping people informed. The Minister is hiding behind IPCO, but it was introduced in the first place to give the public confidence.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I suspect we are not going to come to an agreement on this, so I will probably leave it after this point. The IPCO oversight means that IPCO can look at a request at any point. The maximum period it can go without looking at it is 12 months, but it can look at any point. We have said that requests for communications data must be approved by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office

“except where they are urgent or are for the purpose of national security”.

That interaction, which the right hon. Gentleman rightly supports, is already there, so I do not accept it is lacking.

On the question of proportionality, the amount of information that one may need to investigate a paedophile network, for example, may mean being slightly vaguer about the specific time, whereas following a known individual may require different forms of flexibility and proportionality. I am afraid I am going to be very cautious about setting out what each one means, because these principles will have to adapt and be applied as appropriate.

[Sir John Hayes]

We are going to have to close this down and move on because we have other things to do. Perhaps the way through is, as was suggested a few moments ago, that this be reviewed over time. If in the annual report we have a really thorough examination of how the measure has been applied and in what circumstances—in broad terms, of course, because we do not need the details of the crimes—that would give us the assurance we need. Our Committee has made that point emphatically. That would be a terribly good way out of this and it would not be a huge step. If the Minister agrees to that, I would certainly be satisfied.

[Tom Tugendhat]

It is not for me to tell the ISC what it should look into, but I would be surprised if it did not want to look into this in great depth.

[Sir John Hayes]

I think the Minister might have misunderstood. Forgive me; I did not mean that. I meant that this could be reviewed in the IPCO annual report. That would obviously be considered by the ISC in the way he describes. I think we need a summary of how this will work in practice and a commitment that we do that now. He sort of talked about a retrospective review. Rather than debate this further now, that would be a very good way forward.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am entirely supportive of the idea that IPCO should update the ISC and the Secretary of State about how it is working and provide information so that a proper view can be taken. I think that is entirely appropriate.

[Mr Jones]

Well, that would be fine if the Government did not redact things in IPCO reports and try to stop us getting access to—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but the Government are doing that. They have done it over the past few years. That is the problem. The Government are paying lip service to the ISC. We are not trying to thwart the work of our security services; we are an important part of the democratic oversight of them. That is why we were set up under the Justice and Security Act 2013. I am sorry to say that the Government are trying to drive a coach and horses through it, including by preventing information from IPCO from being given to us.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I think we have covered the area, and I have said all I am going to about the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Powers to require retention of certain data

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 17 stand part.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Section 87(4) of the IPA provides that a data retention notice cannot require the operator to retain so-called “third party data”. There is no intention to revisit the principle of this important provision, but technological advancements have highlighted some discrete and unintended consequences. For example, the Secretary of State is prevented from placing communications data retention obligations on a UK telecommunications operator in relation to data associated with users of a foreign SIM card within the UK.

Clause 16 addresses those unintended consequences and makes an exception for that data within Section 87(4), so that data in relation to roamers using a foreign SIM in the UK would be treated in an equivalent way to the data that could be retained in relation to users of UK SIM cards. Clause 16 also clarifies that communication data required for an internet connection record can be subject to a data retention notice. All existing safeguards will continue to apply.

Continuing to clause 17, the IPA already has extraterritorial effect. Data retention notices—or DRNs—and interception technical capability notices—or TCNs—can be given to a person overseas where there is an operational requirement, and it is necessary and proportionate to do so. However, only TCNs are currently enforceable in relation to a person overseas.

Clause 17 amends section 95 and 97 of the IPA to allow extraterritorial enforcement of DRNs, if required, for UK security purposes when addressing emerging technology and the increasing volume of data being held overseas, bringing them in line with interception TCNs. It is vital to have this further legal lever, if needed, to maintain the capabilities that the intelligence and law enforcement agencies need to access the communications data that they need to in the interests of national security and to tackle serious crime.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I have some comments to make about extraterritoriality, but I will do so in the next debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Review of notices by the Secretary of State

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 19 stand part.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The notice review mechanism is an important safeguard. If operators are dissatisfied with a notice that they are given, or with any part of it, they have a statutory right to refer it to the Secretary of State for a review. Clause 18 is essential to ensure that operators do not make any technical changes during the review period that would have a negative impact on existing lawful access capabilities.

Operators will not be required to make changes to specifically comply with the notice. However, they will be required to maintain the status quo. If there was lawful access at the point at which a notice was given, access to data must be maintained by the operator while the notice is being comprehensively reviewed. This will ensure that law enforcement and intelligence agencies continue to have access to vital data during that period in order to keep people safe.

To be clear, companies can continue to make technical changes or roll out new services during the review period, so long as lawful access remains unaffected. The status quo will apply only to services or systems specified within the notice; anything outside the scope of the notice will be unaffected. If, at the conclusion of a review, the Secretary of State confirms the effect or varies the notice, maintaining the status quo will be vital to ensure that law enforcement and intelligence communities do not lose access to data during the review period that they would otherwise have been able lawfully to obtain. In the Lords, the Government amended the Bill to introduce a timeline for the review of a notice.

[Dan Jarvis]

I will be very brief. I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks, but I want to raise the concerns of some telecommunications operators and of organisations representing the sector about clauses 18 and 19. These include a view that the role of the proposed new notices regime would hinder and even veto product development.

I know that the Minister and his Department have engaged with stakeholders about those concerns, as have Labour Members. I would be grateful if the Minister briefly set out whether recent engagement has taken place with stakeholders with regard to these matters, and whether he has any further plans to address the concerns that they have expressed about clauses 18 and 19.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I want to make a similar case. We are now getting into territory where I struggle to understand exactly what is going on, because I am not a tech geek. We are speeding past this measure almost as if it were inconsequential, but the language in some of the briefings that we have received about it is pretty dramatic.

The bundle that was emailed to Committee members this morning includes evidence from Apple that I think needs to be addressed:

“At present, the SoS must navigate important oversight mechanisms before they can block the offering of a new product or service they believe will impact…ability to access private user data.”

Apple summarises the suite of clauses that the Committee is considering, including the requirement in clause 18 to maintain the status quo during the review process, as allowing the Secretary of State

“to block, in secret, the release of a product or service even before the legality of a Technical Capability Notice can be reviewed by independent oversight bodies. The effect of this amendment will be to, extraordinarily, hand the SoS the power to block new products or services prior to their legality being ascertained. This result upends the balance of authority and independent oversight Parliament struck in the IPA.”

Given the new definition of “telecommunications operator” in clause 19, Apple has also warned that there will be serious implications for conflicts with other laws, including the EU GDPR and with US legislation.

As well as Apple, we have heard from various other organisations. TechUK has highlighted problems with broadening the definition of “telecommunications provider” before control of provision of a telecoms service, including to UK users, is established overseas. It also highlights the potential conflict of laws. What if the domestic law in the country in which a company is based does not allow for compliance with the notice that the Home Secretary has delivered? That company might not even be able to raise the issue of a conflict of laws, because it would be sworn to secrecy under the Bill.

According to TechUK, the proposed changes mark a departure in the way that the UK approaches the extraterritorial reach of the UK or UK laws and the consequential conflicts of laws. That was all recognised in the 2016 Act, in which a partial solution was found in the form of a UK-US agreement. Currently, however, the Government have not set out any plans to work towards equivalent solutions.

In relation to clause 21, I will raise similar concerns from other experts, but it is clear that some very serious companies and organisations have significant concerns about what the combination of these notices may end up delivering. Those concerns need addressed.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank hon. Members for the spirit in which they have engaged. To be clear, it is absolutely right that we listen to representations from companies around the world, as I am absolutely sure all Members across the House would expect. We are still engaged in conversations: the Home Secretary was on the west coast of the United States only last week, I think, and I maintain regular communication with many different companies, including many of the same companies to which the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East referred.

Let me be quite clear about one aspect. There is a real challenge here, and it is absolutely worth getting to the heart of it. The way in which communications data has evolved means that there are now jurisdictions in which the UK cannot protect its citizens without the co-operation of certain companies overseas. That was always bound to happen to a certain degree, but it is now very much the case: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has children, but he will know that many children use tablets and internet-connected devices in their bedroom.

The reach of these companies into the personal life of children in our country has to be a matter of concern to the British Government—it just has to be. The question is who governs these spaces. Are they governed by the association agreements and terms and conditions of the companies, or are they governed by the laws of the United Kingdom passed by Members of this House, of whichever party? That is the fundamental question.

The jurisdiction of this House must be sovereign. If sovereignty is to mean anything, it must mean the ability to protect our children from serious harm. That is basic. Under the IPA and previous legislation going back to the 1980s, this House has always exercised a certain element of influence. Yes, the Bill is extraterritorial, but so are many other Bills that this House passes in relation to the protection of our citizens and our interests. We can have operational reach further than the UK border in order to protect our citizens. That is what we are doing here, and that is what makes it proportional.

It is true that there are conflicts of interest that we have to resolve. I must be honest with the hon. Gentleman: this has come up before. It has even come up in my time. It is something that we have to look at in order to ensure that we address those conflicts and see where the balance of proportionality lies.

It is our very good fortune that many of the conflicts arise between jurisdictions with which we are extremely close. The United States, for example, is an extremely close ally. We regularly—in fact, I regularly—have conversations with the US Justice Department and others to make sure that we manage those conflicts of interest in the best interests of all our citizens. It is unusual for us not to find a resolution, but there are means of dispute resolution when we do not. Although I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, it is not exceptional for companies rightly and understandably to defend their interests where they feel that they have a commercial advantage. That is, of course, reasonable.

The reality is that we are not stopping companies doing anything; we are asking them not to change our ability to protect our citizens, until we have found a fix. If they want to introduce a new product or service or change the way they operate, that is fine: it is nothing to do with us. All we ask is that they maintain our ability to protect our citizens during that translation and into the future.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I will come on later to another line of argument that relates to the unintended consequences of these permissions, but for now I have a specific question. The Minister has spoken about how conflicts of law can be resolved. Is there not an added complication? If we put a notification notice—if we are calling it that—on a company, it cannot share the fact of that notification with anybody at all. Does that not make it well-nigh impossible to resolve the issue with conflicts of law?

[Tom Tugendhat]

Without going into details that it would be inappropriate to share: no, it does not. I can assure the hon. Member that this is a long-standing practice that has been tested, and it does operate.

On clause 19, I wish to put one further point on the record. The clause will amend the definition of a telecommunications operator, out of an abundance of caution, to ensure that the IPA continues to apply to those to whom it was intended to apply, building on the work that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings has laid out. There are circumstances in which a telecommunications system that is used to provide a telecommunications service to persons in the United Kingdom is not itself controlled from the United Kingdom; we have talked about some of those services. The clause will ensure that multinational companies are covered in their totality in the context of the IPA, rather than just specific entities.

Clause 19 does not seek to bring additional companies within the scope of the definition, nor does it seek to constrain how a company structures itself. It is a clarificatory amendment that will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the regime and the process of giving notices.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Renewal of notices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Currently, a notice must be kept under regular review by the Secretary of State, but it does not cease to have effect unless the Secretary of State revokes it. The clause will introduce a notices renewal process such that if two years have passed since a notice was given, varied or renewed, it must go through the double lock process to obtain the approval of a judicial commissioner, in addition to a full necessity and proportionality assessment by the Secretary of State. This change will provide reassurance to operators that their notice remains necessary and proportionate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Notification of proposed changes to telecommunications services etc

[Tom Tugendhat]

I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 21, page 45, line 7, leave out first “person” and insert “relevant operator”.

This amendment and amendments 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 provide that the expression “relevant operator” is used consistently in inserted sections 258A and 258B of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 7 to 13.

Clause stand part.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Clause 21 is required to safeguard lawful access to critical data, which is needed by law enforcement and intelligence agencies to keep the public safe from serious threats such as terrorism and child sexual exploitation.

Technology has advanced rapidly since 2016, presenting a risk to lawful access capabilities. Notification notices have been introduced in response to technological advancements and will require relevant operators who provide, or are expected to provide, lawful access to data of significant operational value to inform the Secretary of State of any technical changes that they intend to make that will have an impact on existing lawful access capabilities.

The requirement will apply only to relevant services or systems specified within the notice, which will be agreed in consultation with the operator, prior to the notice being given, and will not necessarily apply to all elements of their business. It should be noted that technical capability notices already contain a notification requirement; this is not a new concept to the IPA. The clause replicates the power as a standalone obligation within notification notices.

To be clear, there is no ability within the notification process for the Secretary of State to delay, prevent or alter the roll-out of the operator’s intended change. The requirement is needed to provide the Secretary of State—and, by extension, operational partners—with time to identify and evaluate any potential impact that the change may have on lawful access capabilities. It will also be important in giving operational partners time to adjust their ways of working to ensure that lawful access is maintained. The primary objective of the obligation is to create an opportunity for collaborative working between operators and Government to protect the crucial capabilities required to keep people safe.

Amendments 6 to 13 are minor and technical amendments to ensure consistency of language throughout the clause and the IPA.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I want to pursue another line of argument that has been put to members of the Committee. I spoke earlier about the principles of the notification regime; I now want to probe the Government on the extent to which they have considered the possible unintended consequences of setting it up.

The evidence circulated this morning includes a letter from academics and experts from the United Kingdom and across North America, who express considerable concern about the outcome of the proposal. During the last debate, the Minister explained that the justification is that companies from across the world have a reach into children’s homes in the United Kingdom, and it is the duty of this Parliament and legislators to keep them safe. I do not think anyone would dispute that at all.

The experts argue that an unintended consequence of being as radical as the proposal in the Bill is that citizens in the United Kingdom could be less safe. Although the Government are trying to restrict the scope of the regime to what happens in the United Kingdom, in reality it will mean that certain updates and security features will not be rolled out to the United Kingdom. In fact, certain organisations may think twice about developing products for the UK market at all.

I am way outside my comfort zone, so I will go straight to what the experts argue in their evidence:

“If enacted, these proposals would have disastrous consequences for the security of users of services operating in the UK, by introducing bureaucratic hurdles that slow the development and deployment of security updates. They would orchestrate a situation in which the UK Government effectively directs how technology is built and maintained, significantly undermining user trust in the safety and security of services and products.”

They argue that this contains a significant risk of increased cyber-crime, as well as of endangering the encryption of important services. They conclude that

“these proposals are anathema to the best interests of UK citizens and businesses and internet users everywhere, and contradict universally accepted security best practices.”

I want to probe the Government on the extent to which they have considered the possible unintended consequences of how these companies may react to their proposals.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for the way in which he has approached the issue, and I am grateful to him for raising it, but I simply disagree. I disagree on the basis of advice that I have received from intelligence services, from UK-based companies, from the National Cyber Security Centre and indeed from many others.

Let us be quite clear. A notification notice does not create any conflicts of law, prevent any updates or prevent the application of any security patches. The only thing that it does is ask a company to keep the UK Government informed if it is going to change the way the UK Government will be able to protect British people. That has led to somewhat more caution in the reading than is necessary in reality; I have had many conversations with companies about that.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

This is a difficult area, but as I understand it, the argument is not that the notification notices themselves have that issue, but that the combination of notices, together with the technical capability notice, the new provisions in relation to review and the status quo, could give the Government that sort of power. That is the argument.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will just say that many of these powers have been in place for a significant period. The situation that he describes is not one that we have found or noticed in any way at all. I believe that this is a case of people gilding a lily to turn it into lead.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendments made: 7, in clause 21, page 45, line 8, leave out “person’s” and insert “relevant operator’s”.

See amendment 6.

Amendment 8, in clause 21, page 45, line 29, at end insert—

“‘relevant operator’ has the same meaning as in that section.”

See amendment 6.

Amendment 9, in clause 21, page 45, line 35, leave out “notice, as varied,” and insert “variation”.

This amendment provides that references to the variation of a notice are used consistently in Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

Amendment 10, in clause 21, page 46, line 2, leave out first “person” and insert “relevant operator”.

See amendment 6.

Amendment 11, in clause 21, page 46, line 2, leave out second “person” and insert “relevant operator”.

See amendment 6.

Amendment 12, in clause 21, page 46, line 5, leave out “person” and insert “relevant operator”.

See amendment 6.

Amendment 13, in clause 21, page 46, line 6, leave out “person” and insert “relevant operator”—(Tom Tugendhat.)

See amendment 6.

Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Interception and examination of communications: Members of Parliament etc

[Tom Tugendhat]

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 22, page 47, line 17, leave out from “and” to end of line 19 and insert—

“(b) has the necessary operational awareness to decide whether to give approvals under subsection (2).”

This amendment replaces the reference to an individual being required in their routine duties to issue warrants under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 with a reference to an individual being required to have the necessary operational awareness to decide whether to give approvals under section 26 of that Act.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 4.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Government amendments 3 and 4 require that any Secretary of State to be designated by the Prime Minister as an alternative approver must have the necessary operational awareness of the warrantry process to undertake the role. This change will replace the current drafting inserted in the House of Lords relating to “routine duties”, which is over-restrictive and will undermine the resilience of the triple-lock process that the clauses seek to safeguard.

Requiring relevant operational awareness will ensure the necessary flexibility and resilience while maintaining a proportionate scope for delegation. It will allow scope to include those who may be new to their role and do not yet carry out such duties routinely, or who no longer carry them out routinely due to machinery-of-government changes but have valuable pre-existing knowledge that makes them a suitable alternative approver.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the Minister for the fact that his amendment goes some way to dealing with the issues that I and others raised in relation to the change from existing practice. At the moment, the Prime Minister provides the element of what has been described as the triple lock. The Government proposal is that other Secretaries of State should perform the role when the Prime Minister is unable to for a number of reasons. My anxiety, reflected by the Intelligence and Security Committee, is that those Secretaries of State who act for the Prime Minister in such circumstances should be people with operational experience. Typically, that would mean people with warranting powers—people accustomed to the business of issuing warrants, with all that that suggests.

The Government amendment speaks of operational awareness. I think “operational experience” is a better turn of phrase, although I accept the Government’s point that if there was a new Secretary of State—a new Home Secretary would be a good example—they would not necessarily have experience. By definition, they would be new in the job, whether that was the Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary and so on. It might be possible to speak of experience and responsibilities, so it could be either responsibilities or experience. Of course, the Government rightly say that a former Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary or Northern Ireland Secretary who was then doing a different job in Government could be one of the people designated, so I take that point.

The issue here is ensuring that the people who perform the role are competent to do so, and I know that is something on which we agree. It is really a matter of the semantics, but semantics are not always insignificant. I am aware of bolshevism and liberalism, but I would not want anything to do with either of them. I am aware of the separatist case on the United Kingdom, but awareness is as far as I want to go with that—I say that without contention or, indeed, acrimony of any kind. I am not sure that “awareness” is quite the right word, and I simply offer that semantic but not insignificant point to the Minister for his consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I thought we had had a victory—one of those rare things we get with this Government—from the ISC in the House of Lords, but clearly the Minister has found a way of clawing that back.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I don’t think so!

[Mr Jones]

I think so, because the original wording talked about being able to nominate basically anybody. It was then defined, but the amendment widens it again. It says, “necessary operational awareness”; is that, for example, that any Secretary of State is aware that it is a voluntary process? For example, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary sign warrants, and another Secretary of State could say, “Yes, I’m aware of that.” As the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, “operational experience” would be better wording, because “necessary operational awareness” is too broad. What does it actually mean in practice? For example, must they have any experience of having signed a warrant before? Or do they just need to know that the warrantry system exists?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

First, I place on the record my gratitude to the ISC, to which I have listened extremely carefully on this matter; indeed, the Bill has been changed because of it. Let me be clear that although many people are aware of things, to be operationally aware is not the same as to be just aware. Many people were aware of the conflict in Helmand, but I argue that only the hon. Member for Barnsley Central and I were operationally aware of the conflict in Helmand. It is rather a different requirement. It does not mean that one knows about the operation; it means one is aware in an operational sense of it. It is not just an observation of the challenge.

[Mr Jones]

I have to say that from my experience as a former Minister in the Ministry of Defence—I said I was never a Secretary of State—I was not only aware of what was going on but operationally aware. Could an Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence therefore be designated as one of these people? On Tuesday mornings every week, I was very operationally aware of what was going on in Helmand, for example.

[Tom Tugendhat]

First, this goes alongside the code of practice, which challenges the right hon. Gentleman’s point. It would need to be people who were briefed into the warrantry process. It needs to be somebody who understands what a warrant is, so it is not somebody who is merely observing it, such as a Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

On the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings made about experience, I understand the debate. There is a possibility—I know that he and I will do everything we can to prevent it—that there will be a change of Government soon. In that case, there will be an awful lot of people who have absolutely no experience at all of these matters. It would therefore be wise not to set up a provision that would immediately require amendment. Disappointed though we would be at that outcome, my right hon. Friend would agree that he would not want a law to be amended in its first year, if we could possibly avoid it.

To be clear, the Government view the four alternative approvers as being likely to be the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary. Only three would be able to act as the triple-locking Secretaries of State, because of course we would have already used up two of them to do the first two functions. That is why the numbers are required, and why I am incredibly grateful to the ISC for pointing it out and being very cautious on it.

[Mr Jones]

If what the Minister has just said is the case, why do the Government push back on a suggestion that I think they actually made earlier on? The Minister is now pushing back on it. Although I understand the need for the code of practice, if there was a change in it—because there might be sometime—would that come back to Parliament to be approved? We are dancing on the head of a pin here. I do not know why, but that is quite common with the Home Office. The Minister says that it will be mainly four people, but I would love to know what he means by “necessary operational awareness”, which is clunky language.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

Codes of practice will be brought forward through regulations in the usual way, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, and the House will scrutinise them in the usual way. This is a very legalistic process, as I recognise from the inside as much as he does from the outside. It is true that if, for example, the Northern Ireland Secretary became the Education Secretary, they could then be included. The idea is to ensure that it is somebody who is appropriate to the task, which is why the measure is worded as it is. I always listen to right hon. and hon. Members across the House. I believe that the amendment is the best version that we have come to so far. I will continue to listen to the right hon. Gentleman, as always.

[Mr Jones]

May I make a simple suggestion, then? “Necessary operational awareness” is clunky language; surely what is meant is operational experience. That would cover it, would it not?

[Sir John Hayes]

Given what the Minister said about a change in Government—I do not expect one, but I suppose it is a remote possibility—perhaps the words “operational responsibility or experience” would cover the point made and be slightly tighter than “awareness”. Also, there is the matter of notifying the PM. The Committee made the good suggestion that the PM should be notified as soon as practicable, which may be something with which the Minister agrees. If the Prime Minister were indisposed because of illness or whatever, they would be notified as soon as is practicable that a warrant had been issued.

[Tom Tugendhat]

On the second point, I am sure that, like me, my right hon. Friend finds it absolutely inconceivable that that PM would not be notified. I am not convinced that that must be in primary legislation. I find it genuinely inconceivable that the Prime Minister would not be notified at the earliest opportunity. Obviously, if they could be notified immediately, the provision would not be required.

[Mr Jones]

I made that point to the Home Secretary on Second Reading. Yes, I think that is logical—

[Tom Tugendhat]

Thank you—I am astonished. [Laughter.]

[Mr Jones]

But, Minister, let us be honest: a lot of things that we would have taken for granted were ignored in Downing Street over the last few years. Until Boris Johnson became Prime Minister, it had been a great part of our constitution that convention was followed. Surely it would therefore be better to have the point about notification in the Bill; otherwise, we are leaving it to the free will of convention. I would have trusted convention, but we have had Boris Johnson as Prime Minister.

[Sir John Hayes]

I want to help the Minister, because I do not necessarily agree with the right hon. Member for North Durham; occasionally, he and I do disagree, despite the impression that we have created in this Committee. Notification could be covered in a piece of statutory guidance that supports the Bill. It could state that the Prime Minister should be notified as soon as reasonable practicable, exactly in the terms just described. How’s that?

[Tom Tugendhat]

As is so often the case, I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Jones]

Will the Minister put it in the guidance, then?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will look at putting it in the guidance, as suggested by the right hon. Member.

[Mr Jones]

Just say it. If the Minister says it to the Committee, his civil servants will not have to do it. It is easier doing it that way than having negotiations in the office later on.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I have said what I am going to say on the matter.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

[Dan Jarvis]

I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 22, page 47, line 26, at end insert—

“(2G) If a warrant is issued by an individual designated by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister must be informed of that decision as soon as it is reasonably practical to do so.”

This amendment would require the Prime Minister to be notified of a decision of a designated Secretary of State to authorise the interception of certain elected representatives’ communications as soon as is reasonably practicable.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am conscious of the debate that has just taken place, so I anticipate what the Minister may say in response. Let us give him another go anyway.

Amendments 17 and 18 relate to the decision of a designated Secretary of State to authorise the interception of elected representatives’ communications and interference with equipment relating to elected representatives. As the Minister will know, two similar amendments were proposed by Lord West in Committee in the other place. The reason for tabling the amendments in Committee in the Commons is that the Opposition believe that the Prime Minister’s overall involvement in the warrants must be retained, even if, in designated cases, it could be retrospective. As I said, I am mindful of the debate that has just taken place.

In the other place, Lord Sharpe rejected Lord West’s amendment on the basis that the oversight arrangements for warrant decisions taken by a designated Secretary of State, which include review by the judicial commissioner, are sufficient scrutiny. I understand that argument, but I wonder why it should not be the case that a Prime Minister is at least notified about decisions to issue warrants that they have had to delegate due to their being unable to do so. Furthermore, would a Prime Minister not being notified of a decision unnecessarily diminish their operational awareness in making future decisions to issue warrants?

My amendment would require the Prime Minister to be informed of a decision taken by a designated Secretary of State on their behalf as soon as the circumstances that have prevented the Prime Minister from approving a warrant in the first place have passed. I hope the Minister and the Committee will understand the emphasis on the important nuance in the difference between review and notification. Mindful of the earlier debate, I hope that the Minister will consider accepting the amendments.

[Tom Tugendhat]

For want of repeating myself, I will probably leave that to stand.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

We are speaking about elected representatives who are then appointed into Government and make decisions, and we have rightly had an important debate, to which the Minister has responded. If possible, it would be helpful if he could confirm who from the agencies would also be involved in the decision making. That would add some faith as to the robustness of the decision making that takes place when such actions are taken.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am cautious about answering that question, for the simple reason that it depends on where and how the information was gathered, whether it was gathered deliberately or accidentally as part of an existing operation, and whether it was tangential. It is absolutely inconceivable that the chief of whichever agency it was would not be aware and therefore not part of that conversation.

[Mr Ellwood]

That is the confirmation I was seeking.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clause 23 stand part.

New clause 1—Requirement for the Prime Minister to appear before the Intelligence and Security Committee—

“After section 26 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, insert—

‘26A Requirement for the Prime Minister to appear before the Intelligence and Security Committee

(1) The Prime Minister must appear before the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament to provide oral evidence on the matter set out in subsection (2).

(2) The matter is decisions made by the Prime Minister or an individual designated under section 26 to—

(a) give approval to issue warrants to intercept and examine communications of Members of Parliament;

(b) interfere with equipment belonging to Members of Parliament;

(c) other relevant decisions relating to Members of Parliament in the interests of national security

(3) The duty in subsection (1) applies once every session of Parliament.

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply if the Intelligence and Security Committee does not require the Prime Minister to attend.’”

This new clause would require the Prime Minister to appear before the Intelligence and Security Committee to provide oral evidence on decisions made to approve warrants to intercept and examine communications of MPs or to interfere with equipment belonging to MPs, and other relevant decisions relating to MPs.

New clause 4—Interception notification for Members of Parliament etc.—

“After section 26 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (Members of Parliament etc.) insert—

‘26A Interception notification for Members of Parliament etc.

(1) Upon completion of conduct authorised by a warrant under section 26, or the cancellation of a warrant issued under that section, a Judicial Commissioner must notify the subject of the warrant, in writing, of—

(a) the conduct that has taken place, and

(b) the provisions under which the conduct has taken place.

(2) The notification under subsection (1) must be sent within thirty days of the completion of the conduct or cancellation of the warrant.

(3) A Judicial Commissioner may postpone the notification under subsection (1) beyond the time limit under subsection (2) if the Judicial Commissioner assesses that notification may defeat the purposes of an ongoing serious crime or national security investigation relating to the subject of the warrant.

(4) A Judicial Commissioner must consult the person who applied for the warrant in order to fulfil an assessment under subsection (3).’”

This new clause would require members of a relevant legislation who are targets of interception to be notified after the fact, as long as it does not compromise any ongoing investigation.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Clauses 22 and 23 will increase the resilience and flexibility of the warrant system. They will ensure the effective processing of warrants that authorise the interception of, or the use of equipment interference to obtain, the communications of a Member of a relevant legislature when the Prime Minister cannot fulfil their duties due to medical incapacitation or a lack of access to secure communications. The changes will enable the authorisation process to function in an agile manner, thereby enabling the important work of the intelligence agencies to continue while maintaining a high bar for the authorisation of some of the most sensitive warrants.

[Dan Jarvis]

I rise to speak to new clause 1, which relates to oversight by the Intelligence and Security Committee of warrants to intersect and examine the communications of Members or the interference with equipment relating to Members. The context of the new clause will be clear to those who followed the debates in the other place about the role of the ISC. To be absolutely clear, I am not seeking to debate the Wilson doctrine—I know that Members will be relieved to hear that.

The purpose of the new clause is to probe and seek further safeguards for the ISC to provide essential oversight of this extremely sensitive matter, codified by the 2016 Act as part of a wider context of decisions made by the Prime Minister in the interests of national security. Members of this Bill Committee who also serve on the ISC will know that successive Prime Ministers have, unfortunately, not appeared in front of that Committee since, I believe, 2014. As a result, there has been no opportunity for direct accountability over prime ministerial decision making on warrants to intercept and examine Members’ communications, or on interference with equipment relating to Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I shall speak to new clause 4. We are discussing our very important role as legislators—people who have to scrutinise the Government to represent our constituents. Any interference with that role, and any surveillance of us, is a matter of great significance and some controversy, so there should be as much oversight and transparency as possible. I am not a member of the ISC, and I do not know whether this is something the Minister will be able to tell us, but I would be interested to know how often powers have been used to institute surveillance on MPs in each and every of the past few years.

New clause 4 allows us to debate the possibility of post-surveillance notification. That proposal was debated in the House of Lords, but I think it is something that MPs should be alive to as well. Post-surveillance notification would give judicial commissioners a mandatory duty to notify parliamentarians subject to surveillance once a particular operation or investigation had ended. That would typically introduce a further safeguard to protect democracy and our role as legislators, and would ensure the Government are complying with their obligations under article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

Various objections were made to that line of argument in the House of Lords. For example, it was argued that notification would risk revealing sources or methods. That does not have to be the case; post-surveillance notification can inform an individual of the fact of past surveillance without having to disclose such information. Such a post-surveillance notification regime works in Germany, for example.

In particular, there would be no risk—this was alleged by the Government in the House of Lords—of affording judicial commissioners any operational decision-making power. That is because notification would occur only when a surveillance operation was no longer active and, secondly, any such notification regime could allow the judicial commissioner to consult whomever applied for the warrant in the first place. I am absolutely open to a discussion with the Government about the safeguards that would needed to allow such a measure to be implemented.

The other line of argument pursued by the Government in the House of Lords was that redress is already available to parliamentarians thorough the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. As we all know, however, if someone does not know that they have been subject to surveillance, they have no reason to go to the tribunal in the first place.

This proposal is not without some difficultly, but it is worthy of discussion. The Government’s resistance to it has not always stacked up so far, so I look forward with interest to hearing what the Minister will say.

[Tom Tugendhat]

On the point about notification: forgive me, but it is inconceivable that it should be required in law to inform somebody that they have been subject to an investigation by the intelligence services in such a way. I would be delighted to discuss with the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East in a more secure environment why, for a whole series of reasons, that may not be such a good idea. On the question of the Prime Minister appearing before the ISC, my friend the hon. Member for Barnsley Central knows my views—I have expressed them on many occasions—but that is way above my pay grade.

[Dan Jarvis]

For now!

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Equipment interference: Members of Parliament etc

Amendment made: 4, in clause 23, page 48, line 15, leave out from “and” to end of line 17 and insert—

“(b) has the necessary operational awareness to decide whether to give approvals under subsection (3) or (6).”—(Tom Tugendhat.)

This amendment replaces the reference to an individual being required in their routine duties to issue warrants under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 with a reference to an individual being required to have the necessary operational awareness to decide whether to give approvals under section 111 of that Act.

Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Issue of equipment interference warrants

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 25 and 26 stand part.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The Bill makes minor changes to the equipment interference regime, specifically in relation to the warrantry processes associated with its authorisation. The purposes behind those changes are to correct minor drafting errors in the IPA to provide greater clarity, and to improve the efficiency of the warrantry process for equipment interference.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Bulk equipment interference: safeguards for confidential journalistic material etc

[Dan Jarvis]

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 27, page 50, line 9, at end insert—

“(2A) Where a senior official acts on behalf of the Secretary of State under subsection (2), they must inform the Investigatory Powers Commissioner of the selection for examination of BEI material as soon as reasonably practicable.”

This amendment would require a senior official acting on behalf of the Secretary of State who has selected BEI material for examination when there has been an urgent need to do so to inform the Investigatory Powers Commissioner as soon as reasonably practicable.

[Dan Jarvis]

Amendment 19 would require a senior official acting on behalf of the Secretary of State who has selected bulk equipment interference material for examination, when there has been an urgent need to do so, to inform the Investigatory Powers Commissioner as soon as is reasonably practical. It would ensure that every reasonable oversight arrangement was in place concerning the Bill’s investigatory powers provisions.

The amendment does not suggest that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner retrospectively reviews the approval, but instead proposes that they be informed to ensure that there are the most comprehensive and effective oversight arrangements on investigatory powers. We intend not to burden the police and the security services with additional duties, but to ensure that there is the maximum possible oversight with the minimum possible additional work. I hope that the Minister will at least agree with the intentions of the amendment and consider its merits in further strengthening the Bill’s oversight arrangements.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I welcome the amendment, and not only do I agree with it, but I feel that we have already done it. My understanding is that the provision duplicates what already occurs in practice under the current regime, as well as the changes made by clause 27. Currently, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is already effectively notified when a senior official acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, in urgent circumstances, approves the selection for examination of journalistic material derived from bulk equipment interference. Clause 27 already inserts into the IPA new section 195A(2), which will ensure that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is notified as soon as is reasonably practical by the Secretary of State when a senior official approves the use of criteria to select for examination journalistic material in reliance on an urgent approval. Effectively, the senior official is informing on behalf of the Secretary of State, or indeed the Secretary of State is informing on behalf of the senior official. We all very much hope it is the former of the two.

Clause 27 enhances the safeguards already afforded to journalistic material within the IPA, and the Government recognise the importance of journalistic freedom within free and democratic societies, which is why we are introducing this measure. Under the current regime, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must be informed when a communication that contains confidential journalistic material or sources of journalistic material is retained following its examination for purposes other than its destruction. The clause introduces a requirement for prior independent approval by the IPC before any search criteria are used to select such material. Prior independent approval is also required before it is removed.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Exclusion of matters from legal proceedings etc: exceptions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Clause 28 will amend schedule 3 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 to provide exceptions for disclosures of intercepted materials to inquiries or inquests in Northern Ireland or Scotland into a person’s death. The clause will create parity with existing provisions for coroners in England and Wales. It also adds an exception to enable panel members of the Parole Board in England and Wales to access intercepted materials when considering parole applications and any subsequent appeals. It will also enable relevant coroners in Northern Ireland and sheriffs investigating deaths in Scotland to access intercepted material in connection with their inquiry or inquest.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Freedom of information: bodies dealing with security matters

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office is not, and never has been, a public authority within the scope of the Act. The lack of control over the onward disclosure of information related to the functions of the judicial commissioners raises security concerns and has the potential to compromise the IPC’s inspections, which are often, by their very nature, intrinsically sensitive. The clause would prevent sensitive intelligence being further disclosed under the FOIA once such information is supplied by IPCO to a public body.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Power to make consequential provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 31 and 32 stand part.

Government amendment 5.

Clause 33 stand part.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Clauses 30 to 33 are typical clauses that are included in the vast majority of legislation. Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State, by regulations made by statutory instrument, to make provision that is consequential on this Act. Clause 31 details the extent of the Bill. The Bill extends and applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, with the exception of measures contained in clause 28, in which subsection (2) applies to England and Wales only and subsection (3) applies to Northern Ireland and Scotland only.

As national security is a reserved matter, a legislative consent motion is required from Scotland only in relation to a small number of clauses in part 2—the oversight aspect—of the Bill. I am pleased that the Scottish Government have recommended that legislative consent be given.

Clause 32 details when the Bill commences. Part 6 comes into force on the day on which the Bill is passed; the other provisions come into force on such day as is appointed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 31 and 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

Short title

Amendment made: 5, in clause 33, page 56, line 1, leave out subsection (2).—(Tom Tugendhat.)

This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.

Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Report on the Prime Minister’s engagement with the Intelligence and Security Committee

“After section 240 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 insert—

“240A Report on the Prime Minister’s engagement with the Intelligence and Security Committee

(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report about the Prime Minister’s engagement with the Intelligence and Security Committee in relation to the investigatory powers regime and lay the report before Parliament.

(2) The report must be published within six months of the passage of the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024, and annually thereafter.””—(Dan Jarvis.)

This new clause would ensure the Secretary of State publishes a report on the engagement, including any meeting held, between the Prime Minister and the Intelligence and Security Committee in relation to the investigatory powers regime.

Brought up.

[Dan Jarvis]

I recognise that we have already had an extensive debate on this matter. I do not intend to detain the Committee any longer, and there is therefore nothing further I wish to say about new clause 2, so I do not wish to move it.

New Clause 3

Impact of Act on EU data adequacy decisions

“Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report assessing the potential impact of this Act on EU data adequacy decisions relating to the United Kingdom.”—(Dan Jarvis.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on potential impact of the provisions within this Bill on the requirements necessary to maintain a data adequacy decision by the EU.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dan Jarvis]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 3 relates to the impact of the Act on EU data adequacy decisions. When a similar measure to this new clause was proposed by my noble Friend Lord Coaker during the Bill’s passage through the other place, the response from the Minister, Lord Sharpe, confirmed the UK Government’s regular contact with the European Commission about the Bill to ensure that any changes are understood. We welcome that but, as I hope the Minister will understand, such engagement is a continuous process, not a single event or even a series of events. As part of this continuous process, we believe that the Secretary of State should publish a report assessing the potential impact of the Act on EU adequacy decisions.

As Lord Coaker said in the other place:

“The adequacy agreement is dependent on the overall landscape of UK data protections”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 January 2024; Vol. 835, c. 688.]

That is even though the UK protections require some further work. However, given the time pressures, Mrs Cummins, that is all I will say about new clause 3.

[Tom Tugendhat]

First, I welcome the interactions we have had on this point, as well as the work of Lord Coaker and Lord Sharpe to ensure that this is widely understood. The work that has been done is important. We face the challenge that although we obviously commit to fulfilling our side of the TCA and the various agreements we have struck, this is really a matter for the European Commission to determine, so it is not one that we can pass into UK law. It is really a matter for them.

[Dan Jarvis]

I have nothing further to add. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[Tom Tugendhat]

On a point of order, Mrs Cummins. I would like to express my extreme personal thanks to Tom Ball and the Bill team, Phoebe, the Lucys, and the many others who have contributed brilliantly to ensure that this Bill has proceeded with speed and professionalism. I thank not only the members of the Committee, but all Members of many parties, and particularly the ISC, which has contributed so much to this Bill, despite what the right hon. Member for North Durham claims. May I say a particular thanks to my very good friend and shadow, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central? It is an enormous pleasure to think that we have gone from fighting the Queen’s enemies to passing the King’s laws together.

[Dan Jarvis]

Further to that point of order, Mrs Cummins. I join the Minister in warmly extending my thanks on behalf of Labour to all members of the Public Bill Committee and all the officials, both in the Department and in the House, who have done a sterling job in getting us to this point. I am grateful to the Minister for his collegiate approach, which I very much hope we will be able to maintain during the further passage of the Bill. Thank you, Mrs Cummins.

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Committee stage & Report stage
Thursday 7th March 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Copies of written evidence received by the Committee will be made available in the Committee Room, and will be circulated to Members by email.

We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room; this shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when they come to the clause to which the amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the existing clauses of that Bill. Members wishing to press a grouped amendment or new clause to a Division should indicate when speaking to it that they wish to do so.

Clause 1

Requirement for authorisation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. The exceptional growth in volume and types of data across society globally since 2016 has affected the intelligence services’ ability to work and collaborate at the necessary operational pace. The existing bulk personal dataset safeguards do not account for the way that data and its availability have evolved since the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 was passed. This creates a negative impact on operational agility, while making it increasingly difficult for the intelligence services to develop the necessary capabilities.

Clauses 1 and 2 introduce an alternative regime for bulk personal datasets where there is low or no reasonable expectation of privacy—the so-called low/no regime. Clause 1 specifically provides a mechanism for the intelligence agencies to determine whether bulk personal datasets should be authorised under part 7 of the 2016 Act for sensitive datasets, or proposed new part 7A for low/no datasets.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. I rise to speak very briefly to clause 1, and to thank the Minister for his opening remarks.

At the outset of our consideration, we should all take the opportunity to pay tribute to the exceptional men and women who have served in our law enforcement and security services. We owe them a deep debt of gratitude. Let me say that the Opposition support the Bill, which updates aspects of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. It is imperative that legal frameworks are updated to ensure that our security and law enforcement services keep up with the challenges to communications technology in an increasingly challenging and complex landscape of threats to our safety and national security. None the less, the important provisions proposed in this Bill need to be scrutinised carefully. The shadow Home Secretary and I made it clear on Second Reading that we will work with the Government to improve it in places, following the example of the constructive cross-party work that was done in the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

With that initial foray into this territory, I will conclude, except to say that in my career in Parliament, I regard taking the original legislation through as my greatest achievement. [Interruption.] My former Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, is saying it is one among many, but I regard it as the most important thing I have done in Parliament because it is an important matter, not a party political matter; it is important for the safety and security of all our people.

[Tom Tugendhat]

What can I say? We have got a little further on clause 1 than I anticipated. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, the right hon. Member for North Durham and other hon. Members who have spoken. Bulk personal dataset authorisation is clearly an important change, as my shadow, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central, has set out; I was interested to hear the suggestion from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings that this was the shadow Minister’s first step on the path to greatness and to leading the Opposition. I am grateful for the points that hon. Members have made.

The type of data that may fall into part 7A is indeed covered—things like news articles, academic papers, public and official records, and the sort of bulk personal data that many people would have access to routinely. The changing nature of the need to hold data has meant that bulk personal data must be authorised in a different way than was previously thought. Paragraphs 4.14 and 4.20 of the draft code of practice set out further details of the datasets that would fall under the section 22A test, of which the hon. Member for Barnsley Central is no doubt aware.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East touched on various aspects of data that might fall within this approach. He will remember that Lord Anderson noted in his independent review that MI5 and MI6 estimate that roughly 20% of their bulk personal data holdings would fall into the category of “low and no”; for GCHQ, the figure would be nearer to 8%. Clearly, these things will evolve. To answer the point made by the right hon. Member for North Durham, the simple fact is that our world is producing incomparably greater volumes of data than ever before. The need to understand, handle and triage that data is therefore essential.

It is worth making the point, right at the beginning, that creating and storing huge volumes of data is to nobody’s advantage, and particularly not that of the intelligence services. The only purpose of having or examining data is to enable investigatory operations to get to targets of interest. It is not about anything other than ensuring that investigations can be properly targeted against those who threaten the interests of the British people, under various existing laws. This measure does not change those laws; it merely assists the targeting.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Low or no reasonable expectation of privacy

[Dan Jarvis]

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 2, page 3, line 18, at end insert—

“(1A) This section does not apply to a bulk personal dataset unless it has been published in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018.”

This amendment would ensure bulk personal datasets with low or no expectation of privacy have been published lawfully and in accordance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) set out in the Data Protection Act 2018.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I will be brief. I back up the comments of the right hon. Member for North Durham: much more needs to be done to define clearly what we mean by “low or no”. In many ways, separating the two out would make everything clearer. Everybody can tell what “no expectation of privacy” means. It is when we get to low expectation of privacy that we have debates: “Is it this or is it that?”

The factors considered in determining whether something qualifies as low or no include

“the extent to which…the data has been made public”.

If there is no expectation of privacy, that is obvious, so I do not understand why we cannot have more clarity and say, “This is what we mean by no expectation of privacy, and this is what we mean by low.” It might be fine for us in this room to have an understanding of what we mean, but there needs to be public understanding.

We all know that every time we go on any website, we are asked to click to accept the cookies, and sometimes we cannot progress any further unless we do. Data is being gathered left, right and centre. With the best will in the world, not everyone reads every single line of the terms and conditions. We need to be absolutely clear about exactly what we mean so that legal challenges do not occur down the line.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Before I address those points, I want to address the shadow Minister’s somewhat contentious argument that learning French is not a security issue —that was a bold innovation from him.

The points that have been raised are essential to understanding exactly why the Bill is so important. I will cover the “no” and “low” areas separately, for the reason that the hon. Member for Midlothian touched on. We all know what no expectation is; that has been largely covered, and the reality is that even the slightly more restricted version of the electoral register is shared with political parties, as the right hon. Member for North Durham knows.

[Mr Jones]

I agree with the Minister on party access— we get access to it, for example. However, does the person who ticks that box and takes their name out have a reasonable expectation? Do they know that it is being shared? No, they do not.

[Tom Tugendhat]

That is what I was going to say. Although the register is not publicly available and therefore would not fit in this category, that is where we get to the line. The “no” is for publicly available data, and that is relatively clear.

The “low” comes in areas such as the idea of leaked papers, which somebody raised—forgive me, I cannot remember who. That is where the Bill sets out terms under which datasets should be considered, because of course it is impossible for me to give an answer that applies to every single dataset into the future. One example that came up recently, as right hon. and hon. Members will remember, is the Panama papers. One would not argue for a second that the people listed in those papers had an expectation of openness initially. However, after those papers had been published and republished over many years, at what stage do we really think the expectation of privacy is maintained?

That is where the dataset becomes low expectation. We have set out the oversight regime in another area of the Bill, but I will touch on it. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner has a range of responsibilities, the judicial commissioners have other responsibilities for approving warrants and IPCO has responsibility for overseeing the regime. That is where that is addressed—in slightly ways at each moment of influence and each moment of power, but everything is covered.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I am interested in the Minister’s example of the Panama papers. As he rightly says, when those papers were originally held by a bank or a financial institution, there would be an expectation of privacy. However, he is alluding to where they are sourced from. Those papers have been freely circulating on the open internet and anyone can download them, and it is at that point that the low or no expectation would come in. Rather than the nature of the document itself, it is the fact that it is easily available online that matters.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The reality is that once papers are effectively public, the argument for privacy somewhat falls away. That is exactly where we are getting to in this area, which is why we have looked at how to oversee it and the different elements within it. Part 7A explains the oversight regime clearly and section 226A really gets to the nub of it.

It is important that we focus there, where the argument comes back to the essential element: when considering whether intelligence services have applied the test correctly, the judicial commissioner will apply the same principles that a court would apply on application for judicial review. We therefore have an internal legal process overseeing this before it would even get to any legal challenge. That is why it is more robust than some voices have gently suggested, and covers many of those internal challenges.

[Dan Jarvis]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

First, unless I was distracted, I do not think I got a specific answer on the types of data mentioned in the amendment—for example a Facebook post, CCTV footage or anything else.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Those are covered under sensitive data areas; they would not be covered under bulk personal data. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned health data, and he is absolutely right that I did not answer that. I should be absolutely clear: it is hard to envision a case in which health data would be considered “low or no”, unless it was of very ancient historical standing, or there were other exceptional reasons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will just answer that directly, as the hon. Gentleman seems to be running away with this issue slightly. The test set out in proposed new section 226A still applies to all datasets. It is not removed; it goes through the whole thing.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

That is useful to know. I will pray in aid the fact that we did not have any witnesses; anything I say that is daft, and anywhere that I do not understand how the Bill operates, I will blame on the lack of witnesses.

That is useful to know. I will go away and look at that and make sure that that all makes sense to me. That just leaves me with my earlier request: can we have some examples of what a category authorisation looks like? I can imagine that they could be incredibly broadly drafted, but they could also be very narrow. It would be useful to get a better understanding of how they will operate.

My final point is that the Government’s case appears to centre quite largely on using the material for machine learning. We have heard about language, online encyclopaedias and whatever else. If nothing else, why not use this streamlined process on that category of information and keep the existing processes in place for everything else?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I welcome the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman approaches this issue. He is asking important questions, and I do not challenge at all the validity of the way he has approached the issue; in fact, I should put on record that I am grateful for the way the whole House, and this Committee in particular, have approached it. It is important that any questions that any Member has, particularly the questions honourably and reasonably raised by the hon. Gentleman, are addressed.

The hon. Gentleman’s question on category authorisation is important, because the individual authorisation authorises the retention or retention and examination of a bulk personal dataset, to which part 7A applies. In other words, for every individual dataset there will be an individual authorisation. The normal rule is that each individual authorisation must be approved in advance by a traditional commissioner, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings quite rightly addressed.

A category authorisation does not itself authorise the retention or retention and examination of a dataset; rather, the category itself is the means by which the normal rule of prior judicial approval may be disapplied in respect of the individual authorisation of datasets that fall within the description approved by the category authorisation. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East knows, that allows for the internal authorisation of an individual dataset that falls within an existing category. By definition, those categories are narrow enough to be identifiable but large enough to be useful. The reality is that that must be done on a case-by-case basis, but under the watchful eye of not just the unit within the intelligence service that requests it, but a senior officer in that service and a judicial commissioner.

That oversight means that we have an effective way of ensuring that we are able to use bulk personal data as categorised in different areas in a speedy fashion to enable the detection and prevention of harm, but with the oversight regime that the hon. Gentleman quite rightly expects of any apparatus of the state. The intelligence services in particular, for reasons of operational necessity, operate in the shadows, and therefore require an extra guarantee of reliance.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I will go away and consider what the Minister said. Our basic issue here is that a process is in place whereby every single individual dataset must be approved and have the approval and authorisation of a judicial commissioner. Under this scheme, if there is a category authorisation and then an individual authorisation under it, there will not necessarily be any involvement from a judicial commissioner. That is the bit that we have an issue with.

[Tom Tugendhat]

May I come back straightaway on that? To be clear, category authorisations are reviewed by IPCO at the very latest a year—12 months—after the authorisation, but they could actually be reviewed at any point. I am afraid the idea that a category authorisation stands forever just because it has been allowed is not accurate—I know that is not what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. The judicial commissioner would have oversight of the wider category authorisation, and the IPCO review means that the whole thing is checked at the very latest every 12 months, and probably more frequently than that.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Again, I get all that, and I do not think that we are really at cross-purposes. However, we are talking about 12 months of access to datasets without necessarily having them before a judicial commissioner.

I do not think that anyone disputes that this is a slightly weaker form of oversight, which is because the services want to access this material at scale and regard the existing oversight mechanisms as cumbersome, slow and whatever else. We still ask the question of whether there is another way to do that that would still involve judicial commissioners but happen much more randomly and at scale. However, we will go away and consider that. I repeat my request—I know it is not easy—for some examples to reassure members of the public on how exactly this will work. That would be useful. In the meantime, I do not intend to push the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I will be very brief, because I fully support what the shadow Minister and the right hon. Member for North Durham have said. If we are going to go down the route of somewhat watering down the oversight of certain bulk personal datasets, we need greater transparency and accountability. Our amendment 38 has very similar motivations. It requires complete transparency with the ISC by listing all the bulk personal datasets that would be retained under a category authorisation in the report the Bill requires to be sent to the ISC. It answers the question of how we are supposed to know how these new powers will be and are being used unless we have one of these methods of transparency.

[Tom Tugendhat]

If I may, I will come to the last point first. The information going to the ISC on this basis would be, as far as possible, the same as that going to the Secretary of State. Obviously, the operational data may not be included, depending on the relevant operational case. I hope that will reassure this Committee and, indeed, the ISC that the intention is to make sure that the ISC is as fully informed as possible.

On the point made by the right hon. Member for North Durham, he will know that the Bill, in many ways, has been a joint project between the Government and the ISC. I have spent many hours with members of the ISC, including the Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), and with various members of the Committee. Their input has been exceptionally important to me and has been included in many areas of drafting on this.

Turning to amendment 15, the right hon. Member for North Durham and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central, in many ways, have both been the Occam’s razor of the Bill process, not just here, but in other areas. They have been rightly keen that we should not include powers or requirements that would otherwise constrain or block processes or confuse the law. I understand the argument that hon. Members are making about a one-line email, but the reason that I am not convinced—though I am very happy to have the conversation suggested—is that the reality is that it is possible for IPCO to investigate at any point, and it must investigate at 12 months. Therefore, if we ask for a legal requirement on the services, that would force an extra legal duty into the various elements and it will be an extra change.

[Mr Jones]

I disagree with the Minister. Yes, IPCO can look back and can go in at any time to look at things, but if it does not know where the needle in the haystack is, how is it going to actually find it in the first place? This is not an onerous proposal, and I do not understand why the Minister is resisting it, to be honest. This measure would just send another reassurance to the public that, again, the extra powers being given to the security services, which I fully support, at least have some oversight. We need to address the Bill in detail and in such a way that we cannot be accused of handing over powers without also providing very light-touch reassurance that there is outside oversight. I accept that, in most cases, IPCO would not actually look at any of these.

[Tom Tugendhat]

In the spirit with which the right hon. Gentleman has approached this, may I commit to meeting him and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central to discuss this?

[Mr Jones]

We might do it in the wash-up anyway.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Well, the right hon. Gentleman could make a virtue of a necessity if he wishes. I certainly will. I shall enjoy meeting him to discuss this, and I hope that he will take that commitment in the spirit with which it is made.

[Dan Jarvis]

I think that this has been a useful debate. There have been a number of sensible and constructive contributions from both sides of the Committee. The Minister has made a commitment to sit down and discuss this further, and I am grateful for that undertaking. As I have said, we do not intend to push this amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle. I am happy to give way to the Minister if he wants to respond directly to that point.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The point about these powers is indeed to make better use of resources. One challenge is that many intelligence officers are tied up doing things that are no longer genuinely necessary for the protection of personal privacy, but they are following processes that, were they to be working for a private organisation —a company or whatever—would no longer be necessary because bulk personal data could simply be bought. Therefore, what we are actually looking at doing is using resources much more efficiently and therefore helping the protection of the British people, from a better financial position. However, the point made by the hon. Member for Bootle on resources is always one that I welcome.

[Dan Jarvis]

I have nothing further to add, other than to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Duration of bulk personal dataset warrants

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 4 stand part.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Clause 3—

[Sir John Hayes]

We are making sufficient progress, which perhaps permits me to say a word about why, as we have now dealt with those publicly contentious matters around bulk powers, we can move to the next part of the Bill with greater confidence. The Minister has been crystal clear that he—like me, the right hon. Member for North Durham and other members of this Committee—understands fully the important role of oversight and checks and balances. Those checks and balances are multidimensional because of the role of both those elected to this House and the judiciary. I know he will want to expand on that a little as we come to the next part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank my right hon. Friend. Clause 3 amends the duration of bulk personal dataset warrants under section 213 of the IPA from six to 12 months. BPDs tend to be used to support long-term strategic intelligence activities, and a longer warrant duration will enable the value of the BPD to be better demonstrated, which will provide the relevant Secretary of State with a more accurate picture of the necessity and proportionality when an application for renewal is made. The existing part 7 safeguards will remain in place, including the double lock by the judicial commissioner.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Third party bulk personal datasets

[Dan Jarvis]

I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 5, page 14, line 34, at end insert—

“(4) A third party BPD warrant may not authorise the examination of a dataset consisting of the contents of the marked electoral register.”

This amendment would prevent a third-party bulk personal dataset consisting of the electoral register, which sets out whether people have voted, from being examined by the intelligence services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank hon. Members for their points. The examination of third-party bulk personal datasets by the intelligence services is vital to their role of protecting the national security and economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom and preventing and detecting serious crime.

Clause 5 places an explicit statutory regime around the intelligence services’ examination, in situ, of bulk datasets held by third parties. The regime would apply only to the intelligence services, in line with the wider part 7 BPD powers in the IPA. The clause puts in place robust oversight and safeguards. For example, third-part dataset warrants are to be subject to a double lock, and the decision to authorise the warrant will need to be approved by both the Secretary of State and an independent judicial commissioner. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner and his office will oversee the regime to ensure the intelligence services’ examination of third-party datasets is both necessary and proportionate. That relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East about proportionality and need.

To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central, we do not consider it appropriate to exclude specific types of dataset from those for which a third-party dataset warrant can be sought. The reason is, as he knows, that we can begin to go down very tricky routes on this area, as the intelligence services have a requirement to keep safe not just our democracy but our wider nation. Therefore, limiting those different arguments can be problematic. What we are aiming to do is ensure the proportionality requirement is the test applied by both judicial commissioners and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.

The Secretary of State may issue a warrant authorising the examination of a third-party dataset only where it is necessary and proportionate—that is going to be quite a high bar in some of the areas asked about—for the intelligence service to examine the dataset to which the warrant relates. That decision will be double-locked by an independent judicial commissioner who, among other things, is required expressly to review the Secretary of State’s conclusions in respect of necessity and proportionality when deciding whether to approve the decision to issue a warrant. That is already in the Bill. Each decision will be made on a case-by-case basis and will be subject to prior judicial approval.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I have to say, I am struggling to think of a scenario in which it might be necessary and proportionate to examine the marked electoral register. This is something we will reflect on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

That is a helpful and useful suggestion. I am happy to proceed on that basis, if the Minister is.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am happy to write to the hon. Member.

[Dan Jarvis]

On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Minor and consequential amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Clause 6 makes minor amendments to the 2016 Act to reflect the introduction of parts 7A and 7B, including making it clear that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is responsible for oversight of the part 7B regime.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)

Security of Elected Representatives

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the security of elected representatives.

This House brings together our nation. People from every part of the United Kingdom and from every background are represented here to debate, to argue, to challenge and to find the best course for our country to take. That is the way it should be, because this House does not belong to any one community or interest group; it belongs to every citizen from every corner of the kingdom. The decisions we take affect not just the lives of our friends, our neighbours and our community, but every community, and every community’s voice—even those we disagree with—must be properly represented. That principle is at the heart of who we are as a country and as a democracy. Our democracy works only if those who elect us are free to choose the individual they wish, and if that individual—the one they have chosen—has the freedom to say what they think.

In recent days, we have seen those principles waver, and the strain of rising community tensions is beginning to show. Instead of debate and accountability, we have seen intimidation and threats. Members of this House have told me that they feel they have to vote a certain way not because it is the right thing for their communities or even because the majority in their community wishes it, but because a few—a threatening few—have made their voices heard, and made them fear for their safety and the safety of their families. Even this House—the House that has persevered through fire and through war—has been pressured into changing the way we debate. We all understand why. The assassinations of our friends Jo Cox and Sir David Amess have affected us all. We know that there are extremists out there, and the truth is clear: the danger is real. We also know that bending to the threat of violence and intimidation is wrong. It does not just betray those who sent us; it encourages those who, through us, are bullying them.

Last Wednesday, demonstrators threatened to force Parliament to “lock its doors”. What these thugs were actually asking us to do was to put our constituents second, and to bow to those who were shouting loudest. That is more than a threat to us. It is a threat to the very democratic principles and values that define who we are as a country. Let me be absolutely clear: they must fail. If we were to stumble or to succumb to these pressures, we would not just see this House diminished; our communities across the country would suffer. Some things are more important than any of us as individuals.

The pressures have always existed, but since the 7 October attacks on Israel, they have spiked, along with a dramatic rise in antisemitism, accompanied by demonstrations that have caused profound distress and fear in the Jewish community and beyond. We are seeing a darkness return to our streets.

British Muslims also face threats. Islamist extremists call other Muslims apostates unless they are willing to destroy the society that has given everyone, including the many expressions of Islam practised here today, the freedom to worship as they choose. Far-right extremists are joining them in claiming that Islam has no place in Britain. Both claim that Britain is a divided nation, not a United Kingdom. Both are wrong.

This Government reject that agenda of isolation and fear. We will ensure that all voices in our democracy are heard. We are ensuring that those who have been elected to serve their community are able to do so without fear. That is why we are committing an additional £31 million to protect the democratic process and our elected representatives. This funding will primarily support MPs, councillors, police and crime commissioners and Mayors. The Operation Bridger network, which already provides police support to MPs, will be expanded so that all elected representatives and candidates have a dedicated, named police officer to contact on security matters, where needed. Forces around the country will be able to draw on a new fund to deliver additional patrols, so they will be better able to respond to heightened community tensions. Working closely with Parliament and the police, we will provide access to private security for Members who face the highest risk.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Policing Minister and I met senior policing leaders to discuss these issues. Together, the Home Office, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the College of Policing, with input from the Crown Prosecution Service, have agreed a new defending democracy policing protocol. It contains seven key commitments to implement minimum standards of policing at events, to prevent intimidatory protest at homes, and to ensure protests at party offices, town halls, Parliaments or other democratic venues do not inhibit the democratic process. PCCs and chief constables have been asked to report back on the implementation of these measures by April.

Before I finish, may I pay tribute to our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, which keep us safe at all times? This additional funding will help them support us in undertaking our democratic duty.

I take the safety and security of all Members of this House extremely seriously, as I know do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker. The truth is that there are some things that transcend political dividing lines. There are principles that are so fundamental—so sacred, even—that we must all of us guard them against all threats, regardless of party allegiance. Defending our democracy is at the core of who we are as a nation. It is the living expression of the concepts of freedom of thought and freedom of speech. As we legislate and debate, as we argue and criticise, we must be robust. We must continue to test ideas and each other to serve the British people best. We must challenge each other, and remember that this is not just about us. We are only the temporary guardians of liberties that we have inherited. Today, it is our turn to defend them. This is our watch, and it is for us to rise above the fray and to say, with total clarity, that we will not be cowed, we will not be silenced and we will not be bullied. The people we are privileged to represent deserve nothing less. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it. I join him in expressing our gratitude to all those who work to keep us safe. Our democracy is strong, but we can never stand for threats or attempts to intimidate. We cannot and will not allow a minority to pose security threats, or allow racial hatred to ever go unchallenged or to undermine our democracy.

Let me say to the Minister at the outset that we welcome the £31 million of additional funding. We recognise the extremely difficult situation faced by Members of this House, with all of us the target of intimidation and threats of violence, especially women. We must not forget that that targeting also extends to local councillors, Mayors, police and crime commissioners, Members of a devolved Parliament and an Assembly, and of course candidates. Nobody in this House needs any reminding of the terrible price we have paid in recent years and the loss of much-loved colleagues. We must ensure that this additional resource is focused in the right place and at the right time, and that long-term arrangements are in place to provide those who step forward to serve as elected representatives and their families with the reassurance they deserve to do their vital work without fear or favour.

Those arrangements must also ensure that others are not dissuaded from stepping forward to serve, because the threat is undermining the core principles of our representative democracy. Our country must return to a state of affairs where the only fear that politicians ever feel is from the ballot box. Although we absolutely respect the fundamental freedom to legitimate peaceful protest—it is a core democratic right—if that freedom is used to intimidate, harass or harm MPs and other representatives, including outside their home, safeguards must be put in place to protect them and our wider democratic system.

Such protective measures are now essential, but we also need to look at the underlying causes. What is it about our society that has changed that allows some to think that they can intimidate and threaten MPs and other elected representatives with impunity? What are the roots of this poison? It is hard not to see a connection between the increasingly polarised and acrimonious debate that has flourished online, particularly on social media, and the greater threat of physical harm in the real world. We also need to focus on the deeper roots of division that fuel this danger, not least by exercising good judgment in what we say. Words have consequences.

I would be grateful if the Minister answered a few questions. Is the £31 million a one-off uplift, or will it be made available on a recurring basis? How does that relate to Scotland and Northern Ireland? In this general election year, all Members standing for re-election will become candidates again for the short campaign. Can he give an assurance that all who need additional protection will continue to get it? Will he also give an assurance that work is under way to ensure that Operation Bridger is configured and resourced to provide appropriate support locally, not least to our councillors?

Recent protests, alongside threats to and intimidation of politicians, have also raised the issue of what is defined as hateful extremism. The Government have not yet brought forward a definition, but that would be helpful in countering threats and intimidation. Can the Minister say when the Government or the Levelling Up Secretary will bring forward a definition, and outline when the Government will bring forward an updated counter-extremism strategy?

The defending democracy taskforce set up by the Security Minister in November 2022 is an important operational mechanism for co-ordinating activity across Government to protect and bolster our democratic system and institutions. Given the proximity to the general election, perhaps now is the time to look at how we can bring this work together on a cross-party basis. We all have a shared interest in ensuring that elections can be contested in a way that not just defends but strengthens our democracy.

Protecting our democracy and those who serve as elected representatives is mission critical. We must ensure that all who step forward to serve as democratically elected politicians are properly protected, and that the sovereignty of our democratic processes are not undermined. We on this side of the House will work with the Minister and the Government to do everything we can to make sure that is the case.

[Tom Tugendhat]

May I say how pleased I am to be working with my very good friend the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who I have known for a lot longer than either of us has been in this place? The questions he asks are important, and the tone in which he approaches this subject is even more so, and I am hugely grateful for the spirit of co-operation with which he has approached not just today’s statement but the work he has put in before today, and indeed with which the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) approached it before him.

Turning to the questions, the £31 million is this year’s allocation, but there are consequences that will flow into other years. I will not give the hon. Gentleman a figure because that is variable; as he will appreciate, we are almost through the current financial year, and the consequences will depend on what is drawn down and what is required.

The hon. Gentleman’s question about Scotland and Northern Ireland is of course entirely valid. Let me be clear: the security of the democratic process in the United Kingdom is not a devolved matter; it is down to this Government, and it is my responsibility and this Government’s responsibility to make sure that elections in the United Kingdom are free and fair. Of course, we must have a huge amount of co-operation with other Parliaments and Governments inside the United Kingdom; with, in some cases, returning officers and councils; and with Ministers in Holyrood—and Stormont, now that it has, thank God, returned to operating. This area is a sovereign responsibility, for the simple reason that it is about the national security of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about parliamentary candidates. He is right that when the election is called, there will be no more MPs, and any rights and privileges that we enjoy as Members of this House will immediately cease. The Government are looking at ways of maintaining the security requirements necessary to ensure that those who wish to stand as candidates again can do so, free from fear and from the threat of violence.

The hon. Gentleman’s question about counter-extremism is important, and I would like first to pay tribute to William Shawcross for his work on updating the Prevent review, and to Robin Simcox, whose work on the counter-extremism strategy has been so important. This is about countering extremism in many different forms. I mentioned that we must be clear that Islamist violence and threats are primarily a threat to the Muslim community in the United Kingdom. The number of friends of mine in the Muslim community whom some have tried to silence, because my friends’ version of Islam does not tie in with that of thugs and loudmouths who claim to speak on behalf of others, is remarkable. We must champion all voices in this country, and that includes all Muslim voices—there isn’t a single one; there are many. As for the definition, there is an existing definition, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, and work is ongoing to see how that could or should be updated. I am afraid that I do not have an update for him now, but I will certainly bring one forward as soon as I have it.

As for the cross-party nature of the defending democracy taskforce, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I am looking at it now, although I think he will be the first to admit that the work has been very cross-party to date.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

It has been an honour to listen both to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), and my right hon. Friend the Minister. I stand with three shields behind me: one for Airey Neave, assassinated in 1979; one for Robert Bradford, killed in his constituency surgery; and one for Ian Gow, who was blown up a week after the IRA killed Sister Catherine Dunne, a Roman Catholic Sister of Mercy, by mistake, and they thought, rightly, that by killing Ian Gow they would wipe that atrocity off the news. There are also other shields behind the Speaker’s Chair.

On average, one MP is killed every seven years. We are not the only ones exposed to risk; there is also the psychiatric social worker, the emergency blue-light responder, people fishing at sea, those working in a permanent way on the railways, and the like—so we should not think that we are the only people who need to have our safety looked at.

I hope the police will understand that those who need the most protection should get the most protection, and those of us who are not at much risk should not get too much money or attention given to us. There should be a risk-based analysis, so more is given to those who often speak up bravely, or those who, often because they are women or from ethnic minorities, get more attention from the thugs and extremists than is given to someone like me. Our constituents will understand, too, that candidates standing for election with us, who get the same attention as us, should get the same kind of protection as us.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the Father of the House for his kind words. He is absolutely right. I remember hearing as a child about the murder of Airey Neave, and it marked me then, and it marks me now, that somebody with such a record of service to our country during the second world war, when he escaped from Colditz, and who shaped one of our great political parties, had their life ended by the brutality and violence of a small group of murderous individuals whose agenda was not even shared by the majority in their own community, let alone the majority in the country. That is one of the most striking examples of anti-democratic forces in our country winning; they silenced a hero who had served our country for many decades. I appreciate very much my hon. Friend’s comments.

I hope right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me, but I will not go into the details of for whom and how security allocations will be made. If Members require a private briefing on how that is achieved, I am sure that I can arrange something, but the reality is that we will focus on those most at risk, to ensure that those who have credible threats against them are supported. My hon. Friend the Father of the House highlighted sad cases. A colleague of ours who has a seat in this House— I hope she will be returned at the next election—has to wear a stab vest to constituency surgeries. She is threatened by a nationalist movement in her seat. Supporters of hers have been silenced by threats of violence and intimidation. She rightly raised with me this morning the issue of hustings; her opponents will call her any number of names if she fails to attend them. The reality is that the threats against her are credible and real. We are working with the police to make sure that they are mitigated, so that she can carry out her responsibilities, not just to herself, but to constituents who may or may not wish to send her here. We must give them the chance to choose, and not allow a few threatening individuals to prevent her electors having that choice.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. When David Amess was murdered, one of the hardest things I have ever had to do was explain it to my children before they saw it on the news, or before one of their friends spoke to them about it. They were too young when Jo Cox was murdered for me to have that conversation with them. It is the reality of life that this sits on our shoulders as MPs. Last time I had to give a statement to the police about somebody’s behaviour, I asked to do it at the police station, rather than my house, so that my children would not be aware that I was giving a statement to the police.

The Minister talks about the importance of democratic representation, and it is important. So are the measures that he has put in place, but it is also important to realise that some people do not stand for Parliament because of the fear. They do not even get to the point of being candidates, because they are so scared about the risk, not just of serious threats or death, but of the abuse that people receive as a result of being involved in the democratic processes.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. One is about the assessment of the number and severity of threats to MPs from far-right extremists, versus Islamic extremists. One of my colleagues asked me to raise that with him. If the Minister has any information on the numbers, that would be helpful. I welcome the focus on candidates and councillors, and I appreciate his comments on policing of this issue being reserved, but if he expects Police Scotland to carry out some of this work, there needs to be funding for that. How he intends to ensure that there is—whether through the Scottish Parliament or not—is clearly for him, but can he give some reassurance that the forces expected to carry out that work will be funded appropriately, either from the centre or from the devolved Parliaments?

[Tom Tugendhat]

May I likewise thank the hon. Lady for the approach that she and many Members of her party have taken? She is right about Police Scotland funding. Any extra requirements, and the Op Bridger network, which applies, as she knows, across the whole United Kingdom, will be funded centrally to ensure that Members of this House get the same support. Police Scotland will have access to the same funding as other forces across the United Kingdom.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about candidates. The message has to be clear from us. We have seen a level of threats of violence towards Members of this House and elected individuals, including various Mayors, across the United Kingdom in recent years, but this job is still a huge privilege. We need to put it clearly: many of us realise the privilege of serving our constituents, and having our voices heard here and, as a result, around the world. That is a huge privilege and a rare honour for anyone to achieve, and it is worth striving for. It is one of the best ways that any of us, whatever our opinions, can serve our communities and help to make this country and, I hope, our world a better place. It is true that there are threats, and we are organising, as the hon. Lady recognises, extremely carefully to mitigate and reduce them, so that anybody can stand for election free from fear. I urge people who feel that they have something to offer our country to put themselves forward, to test their ideas in debate and at election, and to come and serve our country here on the green Benches.

On the hon. Lady’s question about balance, if she will forgive me, I will not go into the details, but I can assure her that I am not particularly bothered whether someone’s fascism comes from some weird form of nationalist extremism, or religious extremism, or political extremism of any kind—I don’t really care. If you threaten Members of this House, threaten democracy and threaten the British people, we will go after you. We will get you, and you will be detained.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is about defending democracy, but I am very concerned when we start talking about risk. The shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) spoke about having to have the right protections in the right place at the right time. We know that women, people of colour and LGBTQ Members will be at most risk, but none of us could have predicted that a man who was most famous for campaigning to make Southend a city, and Jo Cox, who spoke in her maiden speech about our having more in common, would be the individuals targeted. I urge some caution, particularly when it comes to hustings and to the involvement of weird conspiracy theorists in politics who openly incite division, whether out on the street, in our constituency surgeries or in this House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We need to make sure that we have protections against them as well. There is the question.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My right hon. Friend has made her point extremely clear, and it is one I would support.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes)? I do not think this is a partisan issue, and it is important to recognise that in the culture we now have, it is not about the issues either. The Minister talked about recent events, but many of us have been living with this problem for years, particularly my colleagues who are women of colour.

May I ask the Minister two specific questions, which I ask as somebody who does not want to live in a gilded cage? I want to go out and debate with people. I enjoy robust discussion, as he knows. I enjoy talking to my constituents, and I do not want to be asked to have a travel plan to go to my local park or my local pub or to be cut off from the people I am privileged to serve. At the moment, the approach we are taking suggests that it is all about the individual. I was told by the police that because I was a Back Bencher, my family were not covered, yet my family have been persistently targeted by people trying to intimidate me, from both left and right. Can he clarify whether there will be an understanding in the protection offered about our families in the analysis of risk? Many of the people being put off are not people who look like the people here.

Secondly, the Minister knows I am concerned about 527 groups—the organisations that often promote violence and hatred and incite campaigning which are not registered as charities and perhaps not abiding by the laws on imprints that many of us would recognise, yet increasingly part of British politics. Many of us have been warning for several years about these organisations. Will he now take that threat seriously, because it is undermining democracy?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the hon. Lady. May I be clear that her family, if threatened, are covered? There is no question about that. The programme is based on the threats faced, not what position the hon. Lady may or may not hold in her own party; that is not one of the considerations.

May I also be clear that this £31 million is additional? It does not replace or undermine the work already ongoing in various ways. The hon. Lady will understand that all of us—every citizen of the United Kingdom—are covered by security infrastructure that includes everything from cyber-protection to intelligence agencies and staff who are helping us to stay safe. Many of the actions taken will come from warnings or investigations that have nothing to do with the area that I have just covered. What I was just talking about was the additional security requirements for protecting our democracy from today’s threats. As to her point about 527 groups, I am aware of that—she has raised it with me—and I take it very seriously.

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. He has made it clear that this is not only about security and policing and that we need to look for new ways to tackle what is fuelling anti-democratic abuse, which many hon. and right hon. Members are facing in their day-to-day work. Too often, that culture is developing online. Will he consider my call for a Committee of this House to monitor the effectiveness of the Online Safety Act 2023 and to make recommendations to Government on ways that we can tackle this issue and many others that start online? Surely we need to tackle that cultural change as well as the important issues that he has raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

My right hon. Friend has raised many interesting points about the Online Safety Act over recent months, and indeed years. As it has just passed and is only beginning to come into force, I hope she will forgive me for not making any commitments immediately. However, her points are certainly important, and I will look at them.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. If I heard correctly, he said that the Government have not quite got a definition of anti-Muslim hate. I wonder if that could urgently be rectified. The post of independent adviser on Islamophobia has been vacant for over a year, but the Government are in desperate need of one.

I thank hon. Members for acknowledging the hate crime against women of colour. May I just mention my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), who has had an obscene amount of hate levelled at her, and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), the first hijab-wearing MP? The abuse they have faced is terrible.

MI5 and the Intelligence and Security Committee have stated that extreme right-wing terrorism is sadly here to stay, with the threat fuelled in part by racism. MI5 has said that teenagers as young as 13 are joining in extremist activity, often online. Last week, the Minister in the other place revealed that the Government are

“not intending to publish a hate crime strategy”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 February 2024; Vol. 836, c. 599.]

despite the last one being four years out of date. With the Community Security Trust report stating that there has been a rise in antisemitic abuse and a 300% rise in Islamophobia, why are the Government abandoning their work on hate crime?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the hon. Lady for the question. We are not abandoning our work on hate crime. May I just cover some of those issues in order?

First, I was talking about a definition of extremism, not of anti-Muslim hate, in response to the question from the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). The Government are absolutely clear that racism in all its forms, including anti-Muslim hatred, is absolutely wrong, and there is no question about that. The only area of discussion has to be about how we deal with it, not whether we recognise it. We do recognise it.

As the hon. Lady recognises, hate crime in this country is sadly rising, and there are individuals who have faced the force of that from various different areas. Very sadly, many in the Muslim community, as she is aware, feel that hatred not from outside the community but from within it—from those who are trying to preach an extremist message of Islam that is not accepted within the Muslim community, let alone in other parts of the country.

We must be absolutely clear that this country protects someone’s status for who they are and not for what they happen to believe. There is freedom of belief and freedom of religious expression, which also means the freedom not to believe or to believe differently from one’s family or community. Those things are also protected.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I am grateful for the support that I have had from Police Scotland, and it is a matter of considerable regret to me that officers have had to attend my recent surgeries, as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). I am conscious that the last time I spoke in Parliament on policing issues was to highlight the lack of police in the south of Scotland, where they operate with minimum numbers. My concern is that the police attending demonstrations and the events I am involved in are displaced from attending and supporting the constituents for whom I am here to speak. I fully agree with everything the Minister said, but will he assure us that the deployment of resources to protect us and protect democracy does not displace resources from protecting our constituents, the very people we are here to serve?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. It will surprise nobody in the House that he quite correctly raised the fact that we must not put ourselves above our constituents. That is not what the statement is about. We are making sure that our constituents’ voices are defended and that their values, their expressions and the choices they make are able to stand. That is all we are doing. He is absolutely right that we would not take away from the protection of our wider society to protect those elected to serve it—what we are doing is part of the same thing.

As my right hon. Friend knows, we are also increasing police numbers. Sadly, in Scotland, that has not yet followed.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for the letter he sent to Members. I have been grateful to get clarity from the Dispatch Box in relation to myself as a Scottish MP. It would be nice to get a letter sent to all Scottish MPs that appreciates the complexity, because the seven points of the defending democracy protocol continually mention England and Wales, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing. I am sure that all the required engagement and connections are in place, but such a letter would give us an increased degree of confidence.

My questions are on two things. The Minister said he was looking at what can be provided during the election period, when we are no longer MPs. From a risk assessment perspective, my ask is that social media monitoring continues—I hope that would be one of the more cost- effective measures—so that we can see risks that we were not expecting.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), I do not want to live in a gilded cage either. I also associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer): we need to ensure that we are not preventing MPs from being close to their constituents while tackling the root problems. I would be grateful for the Minister giving us an update on that.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the hon. Lady for the feedback on that letter. I will ensure that that clarity is given. This statement absolutely applies to whole of the United Kingdom, as I have said, but I will ensure that I clarify that. Social media monitoring will not end at the election. Indeed, it is provided not just by the House, but, as the hon. Lady knows, by other elements of the Government. As to the wider challenges, this is an area where we are continuing to work. I would appreciate—this is an unusual and perhaps reckless thing to say at the Dispatch Box—feedback from all Members on the effect they see of these policies operating in their constituencies.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

If the security services are advising that this £30 million is needed, I welcome that if it keeps our Members safe. The Minister has referred to the national demonstrations. May I say, as someone who has had to learn lessons over the years about the nature of statements I have made, that we must be careful about how we use words in relation to those demonstrations? I have been on virtually every one of them, and, just as the police reported to the Home Affairs Committee, they have been overwhelmingly peaceful. The people I have walked with are members of the Jewish community. Where signs—they have been appalling —have been identified, the police, working with the stewards of those demonstrations, have dealt with them effectively and, yes, prosecuted people. I am pleased with that. We must be careful in our language, because I would not want distorted language to lead to conclusions such as that we should restrict the right to protests. We should be proud of the people of our country because, as a result of their concerns about human suffering, they have come out on to the streets in such large numbers to urge that that suffering is ended.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am enormously proud of the British people. I have always been proud to be British and I will remain so until the day I die. This is the most remarkable country. My grandfather came here just over 100 years ago as a student. His family followed, fleeing the persecution and murder that sadly engulfed Europe for those horrific years of fascism. This country has given protection, security and safety not just to me but to millions like me. Not only has it enabled us to prosper and thrive, but it has afforded me the huge honour of representing the community that I love, and has allowed me to speak on behalf of His Majesty as his Minister here at the Dispatch Box. This is an amazing country, and I am deeply proud to serve it.

Let me touch on some of those protests. I was very measured in my language, and I was careful in the way that I put it because many good people protest on every side of every debate. There are always people who rightly raise concerns about aspects of foreign policy over which we may or may not have influence. Many of us have raised personal concerns about the horrific treatment of over 100 hostages who are still held, even now, in tunnels by a terrorist group who murdered their families in a surprise attack 120 or 150 days ago. Many of us have showed our horror at that. Others, sadly, have chosen to march with some who have shown signs of hate and racism. Others have chosen to stay silent when they have seen those signs. Others, completely by chance, find themselves photographed in front of signs of the deepest, most hateful antisemitism that we have seen on our streets since the Cable Street marches of almost a century ago. Is it not a strange quirk of fate how the same people are accidentally photographed in front of the same signs on a regular basis? What poor, poor luck they must have.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his statement which, rightly, looks at the security of elected representatives. He referred to hustings; in practice, how does he feel that would work? Thinking back to my election in 2019, there were nine hustings in my constituency alone. I managed to go to eight; I was nearly keeling over by the ninth. They will be happening right across the country, and rightly so, because our constituents must be able to come to us and ask what our policies are.

I also want to mention the staff members who support us. None of us would do our jobs as elected representatives —including councillors, elected Mayors and MPs—without the support of our staff. Will there be any support for staff members?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am sure that no one in this House would judge the hon. Lady for missing one hustings out of nine. We are all in the process of training and strengthening up to get ready for whatever comes. She is absolutely right about staff members. Many of them will be affected in different ways. She will understand that I will not prescribe a single policy for hustings or for staff members because her seat—wonderful as it is—is not the same as mine or those of other hon. Members. Everyone’s seat is different and everyone’s staff work in differently ways, quite rightly, to serve their communities. It would not be right for me to prescribe that. However, the funding is available to the police—for her, it is the Metropolitan police—in order to support her in whatever way is most appropriate. It will require some judgment and perhaps some wider information and additional support. If changes are required, I would be grateful if she could let me know.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I served on the House of Commons Commission for three years, with you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that the security of Members of Parliament is essential for this House. Last week, precedent and convention were turned on their head, because concerns were expressed about the safety of some Members. There was a real sense that because we did that, mob rule has somehow prevailed. If that is the case, it will only encourage those who seek to disrupt our proceedings. Can the Minister assure me and the rest of the House that, although security of Members is essential and paramount, we will never again change the democratic practices of this House to satisfy the concerns and demands of a mob?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments. They remind me of those famous words of Speaker Lenthall: “I have neither eyes to see nor voice to speak, save that as given to me by this House”, in answer to King Charles—an earlier, less beloved sovereign of this Kingdom. When he spoke, he was rightly rejecting all force except that of the sovereignty of the British people, who have chosen their representation here, to have any voice in this place. In rejecting that outside force, he was rejecting the King. Now, thank God, we have a wonderful King whose voice is only munificence and light. We need to reject the mob. It is an outside power and it is unacceptable that it should have a voice in here. That silences the legitimate voice of our constituents and our country, and it must never be tolerated.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I have not spoken about my own personal security before, and I hope it will become apparent to the Minister why I need to do so today. I have been subject to serious threats, including death threats. I have been offered police support and protection. At one stage, we had to ensure that our teenage daughter was physically escorted to and from sixth form college, and she was not allowed off campus at break times. I have one live police investigation into harassment, one pending Crown court case into death threats, and I have physical security at my house, some of which I really did not want.

The security of MPs and their families is a serious matter, and it is not appropriate for it to become a political football. The Minister will therefore understand, I hope, my gut-wrenching anxiety and dismay when Tameside Conservative Councillor Liam Billington sought to politicise the physical measures at my house. Indeed, that was amplified by his Tory party chairman on social media. That is not acceptable. I hope that it does not happen to any other Member of this House.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Let me be very clear. Security for a Member, whether at home, police protection or whatever it happens to be, is not a luxury or a benefit. It is a burden and an intrusion into their personal life that is essential for the conduct of our democracy in our country. It is not something that any of us would choose— I certainly would not. It is deeply disturbing that anyone’s children should be targeted or threatened, and I hope the whole House will be clear and speak as one that no one should ever be criticised for having security and protection. I am sure that others outside will have heard that.

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

MPs must be safe to express their views. As we have heard from hon. Members on both sides, they face real threats, intimidation and abuse. That must be condemned at all times. But at a time of heightened tension, the Prime Minister’s talk of mob rule and some of the Minister’s comments today in relation to legitimate, peaceful protests, dangerously distort those events for political reasons, and detract from real risks. This morning, the Met’s former chief super- intendent, Dal Babu, made similar comments when he challenged unhelpful language, saying that there is a level of frustration, but we are in a democracy and the overwhelming majority of people at protests are peaceful. Do we not have a duty, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, to speak very carefully, address real concerns and not abuse events in that way? We must protect MPs, but we must also ensure that the public’s right to peaceful protest is protected.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am slightly surprised by the hon. Lady’s comments. My prime duty to this House, and to those who elected me to serve them here, is to be honest. There is no point in lying to them or deceiving you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is absolutely no point in spreading untruths, leading to an outcome that would not serve us well. All I have done today is speak truthfully about the nature of the protests we have seen and repeat the words of some of those who organised those protests: that they would have us lock our doors, that they would close this Parliament, that they would silence our voices and that they would end our democratic processes. That is what they are advocating. If she does not like the truth, maybe she should stop supporting them.